Re: [patch] Fix PR middle-end/68251

2015-11-10 Thread Eric Botcazou
> Tested on x86_64-suse-linux, OK for the mainline? I'll install the Fortran > testcase once it is reduced because it takes a while to compile ATM. Here it is, as reduced by Joost, installed on the mainline. 2015-11-10 Eric Botcazou * gfortran.dg/pr68251.f90:

[patch] Fix PR middle-end/68251

2015-11-09 Thread Eric Botcazou
Hi, I don't understand how this didn't show up sooner given the amount of testing, but there is a nasty overloading for the new REF_REVERSE_STORAGE_ORDER flag: #define REF_REVERSE_STORAGE_ORDER(NODE) \ (TREE_CHECK2 (NODE, BIT_FIELD_REF, MEM_REF)->base.u.bits.saturating_flag) saturating_flag

Re: [patch] Fix PR middle-end/68251

2015-11-09 Thread Richard Biener
On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote: > Hi, > > I don't understand how this didn't show up sooner given the amount of testing, > but there is a nasty overloading for the new REF_REVERSE_STORAGE_ORDER flag: > > #define REF_REVERSE_STORAGE_ORDER(NODE) \ >

Re: [patch] Fix PR middle-end/68251

2015-11-09 Thread Eric Botcazou
> Looks good to me. Thanks. > I wonder where you store the info on TARGET_MEM_REFs though? Or > is IVOPTs prohibited from messing with such refs (pessmizing them)? Yes, the latter: * tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c (may_be_nonaddressable_p) : New. Return true if reverse storage order.