public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug middle-end/40168] New: missing unrolling/scalarization/reassoc/free
@ 2009-05-16 9:35 jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2009-05-16 9:36 ` [Bug middle-end/40168] " jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
` (19 more replies)
0 siblings, 20 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk @ 2009-05-16 9:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
The testcase to be attached can be compiled with
gfortran -O3 -march=native -ffast-math -funroll-loops -ffree-line-length-200
test.f90
and as discussed in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-05/msg00416.html
shows some limitations in optimization of gcc 4.3 4.4 and 4.5
--
Summary: missing unrolling/scalarization/reassoc/free
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40168
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/40168] missing unrolling/scalarization/reassoc/free
2009-05-16 9:35 [Bug middle-end/40168] New: missing unrolling/scalarization/reassoc/free jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
@ 2009-05-16 9:36 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2009-05-16 9:54 ` [Bug fortran/40168] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (18 subsequent siblings)
19 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk @ 2009-05-16 9:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-05-16 09:36 -------
Created an attachment (id=17883)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17883&action=view)
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40168
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40168] missing unrolling/scalarization/reassoc/free
2009-05-16 9:35 [Bug middle-end/40168] New: missing unrolling/scalarization/reassoc/free jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2009-05-16 9:36 ` [Bug middle-end/40168] " jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
@ 2009-05-16 9:54 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-05-16 10:04 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (17 subsequent siblings)
19 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-05-16 9:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-16 09:54 -------
translating
buffer1 = 0.0_dp
to
(void) __builtin_memset ((void *) &buffer1, 0, 648);
pessimizes the middle-end analysis because buffer1 is now addressable and
escapes. The maybe valid (if not we'll fix it) form
buffer1 = {};
would be prefered here (CONSTRUCTOR with no elements).
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
Severity|normal |enhancement
Component|middle-end |fortran
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40168
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40168] missing unrolling/scalarization/reassoc/free
2009-05-16 9:35 [Bug middle-end/40168] New: missing unrolling/scalarization/reassoc/free jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2009-05-16 9:36 ` [Bug middle-end/40168] " jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2009-05-16 9:54 ` [Bug fortran/40168] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-05-16 10:04 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-05-16 11:19 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
` (16 subsequent siblings)
19 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-05-16 10:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-16 10:04 -------
Like so:
Index: trans-expr.c
===================================================================
--- trans-expr.c (revision 147583)
+++ trans-expr.c (working copy)
@@ -4430,7 +4430,8 @@ gfc_trans_zero_assign (gfc_expr * expr)
/* Convert arguments to the correct types. */
if (!POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (dest)))
- dest = gfc_build_addr_expr (pvoid_type_node, dest);
+ return build2 (MODIFY_EXPR, void_type_node,
+ dest, build_constructor (TREE_TYPE (dest), NULL));
else
dest = fold_convert (pvoid_type_node, dest);
len = fold_convert (size_type_node, len);
that leaves FRE to figure that it can CSE a zero from
array1 = {};
in
buffer1 = {};
D.2743_415 = buffer1[54];
and similar cases. buffer2 is later scalarized by SRA.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40168
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40168] missing unrolling/scalarization/reassoc/free
2009-05-16 9:35 [Bug middle-end/40168] New: missing unrolling/scalarization/reassoc/free jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2009-05-16 10:04 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-05-16 11:19 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2009-05-16 11:20 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
19 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk @ 2009-05-16 11:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-05-16 11:19 -------
(In reply to comment #3)
> Like so:
>
> Index: trans-expr.c
> ===================================================================
> --- trans-expr.c (revision 147583)
> +++ trans-expr.c (working copy)
> @@ -4430,7 +4430,8 @@ gfc_trans_zero_assign (gfc_expr * expr)
>
> /* Convert arguments to the correct types. */
> if (!POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (dest)))
> - dest = gfc_build_addr_expr (pvoid_type_node, dest);
> + return build2 (MODIFY_EXPR, void_type_node,
> + dest, build_constructor (TREE_TYPE (dest), NULL));
> else
> dest = fold_convert (pvoid_type_node, dest);
> len = fold_convert (size_type_node, len);
this seems to speedup this case by somewhat, but not quite as much as the
hand-coded version (even with the other unroll parameters).
However, another testcase I run automatically when building gcc is much faster
with a patched trunk than unpatched trunk from a week ago. I will try to see if
this is due to this patch alone.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40168
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40168] missing unrolling/scalarization/reassoc/free
2009-05-16 9:35 [Bug middle-end/40168] New: missing unrolling/scalarization/reassoc/free jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2009-05-16 11:19 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
@ 2009-05-16 11:20 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-05-16 11:31 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
` (14 subsequent siblings)
19 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-05-16 11:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-16 11:20 -------
With that patch and
-O3 -ffast-math -funroll-loops -mfpmath=sse -msse2 --param
max-completely-peel-times=27 --param max-completely-peeled-insns=1500
--params for allow unrolling of all innermost loops I get
./test
Sparse: time[s] 0.68804300
New: time[s] 0.40802497
speedup 1.6862767
Glfops 1.5881380
Error: 1.11022302462515654E-016
which isn't too bad. The rest of the difference might be attributed to
unfortunate scheduling or that multiplication thing (PRE skips a lot
of multiplication hoisting opportunities because they look like
induction variables though LIM later hoists them).
With the above flags and -fno-ivopts (looking what dump stuff it does
again...) I get
./test
Sparse: time[s] 0.58003598
New: time[s] 0.62803900
speedup 0.92356682
Glfops 1.0317831
Error: 1.11022302462515654E-016
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40168
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40168] missing unrolling/scalarization/reassoc/free
2009-05-16 9:35 [Bug middle-end/40168] New: missing unrolling/scalarization/reassoc/free jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2009-05-16 11:20 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-05-16 11:31 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2009-05-16 11:39 ` rguenther at suse dot de
` (13 subsequent siblings)
19 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk @ 2009-05-16 11:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-05-16 11:31 -------
(In reply to comment #5)
This looks somewhat different from what I get here.
trunk without patch:
vondele@pcihopt3:/data03/vondele/contract> gfortran -O3 -march=native
-ffast-math -funroll-loops -ffree-line-length-200 --param
max-completely-peel-times=27 --param max-completely-peeled-insns=666 test.f90 ;
./a.out
Sparse: time[s] 0.70804399
New: time[s] 0.21201301
speedup 3.3396254
Glfops 3.0564163
Error: 1.11022302462515654E-016
vondele@pcihopt3:/data03/vondele/contract> gfortran -O3 -march=native
-ffast-math -funroll-loops -ffree-line-length-200 test.f90 ; ./a.out
Sparse: time[s] 0.61203802
New: time[s] 0.20801300
speedup 2.9423065
Glfops 3.1151900
Error: 1.11022302462515654E-016
with patch:
vondele@pcihopt3:/data03/vondele/contract> gfortran -O3 -march=native
-ffast-math -funroll-loops -ffree-line-length-200 --param
max-completely-peel-times=27 --param max-completely-peeled-insns=666 test.f90 ;
./a.out
Sparse: time[s] 0.60403699
New: time[s] 0.21201402
speedup 2.8490427
Glfops 3.0564015
Error: 1.11022302462515654E-016
with 4.4_branch:
vondele@pcihopt3:/data03/vondele/contract> gfortran -O3 -march=native
-ffast-math -funroll-loops -ffree-line-length-200 --param
max-completely-peel-times=27 --param max-completely-peeled-insns=666 test.f90 ;
./a.out
Sparse: time[s] 0.70404398
New: time[s] 0.20401198
speedup 3.4509933
Glfops 3.1762841
Error: 1.11022302462515654E-016
vondele@pcihopt3:/data03/vondele/contract> gfortran -O3 -march=native
-ffast-math -funroll-loops -ffree-line-length-200 test.f90 ; ./a.out
Sparse: time[s] 0.66804200
New: time[s] 0.20801300
speedup 3.2115397
Glfops 3.1151900
Error: 1.11022302462515654E-016
-march=native goes to :
-march=k8-sse3 -mcx16 -msahf --param l1-cache-size=64 --param
l1-cache-line-size=64 --param l2-cache-size=1024 -mtune=k8
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40168
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40168] missing unrolling/scalarization/reassoc/free
2009-05-16 9:35 [Bug middle-end/40168] New: missing unrolling/scalarization/reassoc/free jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2009-05-16 11:31 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
@ 2009-05-16 11:39 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2009-05-16 12:20 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
` (12 subsequent siblings)
19 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: rguenther at suse dot de @ 2009-05-16 11:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-05-16 11:39 -------
Subject: Re: missing
unrolling/scalarization/reassoc/free
On Sat, 16 May 2009, jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk wrote:
> ------- Comment #6 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-05-16 11:31 -------
> (In reply to comment #5)
> This looks somewhat different from what I get here.
>
> trunk without patch:
>
> vondele@pcihopt3:/data03/vondele/contract> gfortran -O3 -march=native
> -ffast-math -funroll-loops -ffree-line-length-200 --param
> max-completely-peel-times=27 --param max-completely-peeled-insns=666 test.f90 ;
> ./a.out
try --param max-completely-peeled-insns=1500 to also get the last
innermost loop unrolled (that blocks scalarization of buffer1, with
the patch).
I'm testing on i?86.
Richard.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40168
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40168] missing unrolling/scalarization/reassoc/free
2009-05-16 9:35 [Bug middle-end/40168] New: missing unrolling/scalarization/reassoc/free jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2009-05-16 11:39 ` rguenther at suse dot de
@ 2009-05-16 12:20 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2009-05-16 12:39 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
` (11 subsequent siblings)
19 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk @ 2009-05-16 12:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-05-16 12:20 -------
(In reply to comment #7)
> Subject: Re: missing
> unrolling/scalarization/reassoc/free
so, double good news.
First, the unrelated other testcase that speeds up by 30% does this thanks to
this patch only. This is a really significant gain since it is a real CP2K run,
not a micro-benchmark.
Second, the current testcase gets great results, i.e. reproducing the
hand-optimized code in efficiency using the unroll parameters and the no-ivopts
flag.
gfortran -O3 -march=native -ffast-math -funroll-loops -ffree-line-length-200
--param max-completely-peel-times=27 --param max-completely-peeled-insns=2000
-fno-ivopts test.f90 ; ./a.out
Sparse: time[s] 0.24001500
New: time[s] 0.22401398
speedup 1.0714287
Glfops 2.8926766
Error: 0.0000000000000000
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40168
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40168] missing unrolling/scalarization/reassoc/free
2009-05-16 9:35 [Bug middle-end/40168] New: missing unrolling/scalarization/reassoc/free jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2009-05-16 12:20 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
@ 2009-05-16 12:39 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2009-05-16 13:46 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
19 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk @ 2009-05-16 12:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-05-16 12:39 -------
BTW, the patch also applies to 4.4_branch and has the same positive effect...
pretty please ?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40168
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40168] missing unrolling/scalarization/reassoc/free
2009-05-16 9:35 [Bug middle-end/40168] New: missing unrolling/scalarization/reassoc/free jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2009-05-16 12:39 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
@ 2009-05-16 13:46 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-05-16 14:48 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
19 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-05-16 13:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #10 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-16 13:46 -------
Nice for a one liner patch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40168
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40168] missing unrolling/scalarization/reassoc/free
2009-05-16 9:35 [Bug middle-end/40168] New: missing unrolling/scalarization/reassoc/free jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2009-05-16 13:46 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-05-16 14:48 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-05-18 8:53 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
19 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-05-16 14:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-16 14:48 -------
Part of this optimization could (should) be done in the middle-end see PR
36602.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40168
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40168] missing unrolling/scalarization/reassoc/free
2009-05-16 9:35 [Bug middle-end/40168] New: missing unrolling/scalarization/reassoc/free jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2009-05-16 14:48 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-05-18 8:53 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-05-18 10:25 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
19 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-05-18 8:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-18 08:53 -------
I'm now testing the one-liner.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40168
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40168] missing unrolling/scalarization/reassoc/free
2009-05-16 9:35 [Bug middle-end/40168] New: missing unrolling/scalarization/reassoc/free jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2009-05-18 8:53 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-05-18 10:25 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-05-18 12:20 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
` (6 subsequent siblings)
19 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-05-18 10:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-18 10:24 -------
Subject: Bug 40168
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon May 18 10:24:34 2009
New Revision: 147659
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=147659
Log:
2009-05-18 Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de>
PR fortran/40168
* trans-expr.c (gfc_trans_zero_assign): For local array
destinations use an assignment from an empty constructor.
* gfortran.dg/array_memset_2.f90: Adjust.
Modified:
trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/array_memset_2.f90
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40168
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40168] missing unrolling/scalarization/reassoc/free
2009-05-16 9:35 [Bug middle-end/40168] New: missing unrolling/scalarization/reassoc/free jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2009-05-18 10:25 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-05-18 12:20 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2009-05-27 11:01 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
19 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk @ 2009-05-18 12:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #14 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-05-18 12:19 -------
Created an attachment (id=17886)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17886&action=view)
simplified testcase for common subexpressions.
Richard,
thanks very much for the first patch. I tried to get a better testcase for the
issue with the number of multiplies being too large (compile with gfortran -O3
-march=native -ffast-math -cpp test.f90). This is the newly attached
test_reassoc.f90. The module contains two equivalent subroutines S1 and S2. In
S1, gcc manages to reduce the multiplies nearly to the optimal one (I believe
optimal is 81+81+9+9=180, gcc finds 198). In S2, which introduces a temporary
array somewhat like in the original, this doesn't happen, and the number of
multiplies is 324. Looks like the introduction of the temporary array blocks
some optimisation.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40168
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40168] missing unrolling/scalarization/reassoc/free
2009-05-16 9:35 [Bug middle-end/40168] New: missing unrolling/scalarization/reassoc/free jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2009-05-18 12:20 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
@ 2009-05-27 11:01 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-06-06 7:08 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
` (4 subsequent siblings)
19 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-05-27 11:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #15 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-27 11:01 -------
The issue is not the temporary array but the way how CSE works. In S2 there
are simply no CSE opportunities - for example consider
t1 = a * b;
t2 = t1 * c;
t3 = a * c;
t4 = t3 * b;
The current CSE implementation cannot see the opportunity here.
(*b_3(D))[79] = (*b_3(D))[1] * (*s_1(D))[2] * (*s_1(D))[5] * (*s_1(D))[8] *
(*s_1(D))[10];
(*b_3(D))[80] = (*b_9(D))[0] * (*s_1(D))[2] * (*s_1(D))[5] * (*s_1(D))[8] *
(*s_1(D))[11];
I will try to do something here.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40168
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40168] missing unrolling/scalarization/reassoc/free
2009-05-16 9:35 [Bug middle-end/40168] New: missing unrolling/scalarization/reassoc/free jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2009-05-27 11:01 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-06-06 7:08 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2009-06-14 12:31 ` rguenther at suse dot de
` (3 subsequent siblings)
19 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk @ 2009-06-06 7:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #16 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-06-06 07:08 -------
(In reply to comment #13)
> Subject: Bug 40168
Richard, this empty constructor patch was also OKed for 4.4 and has been on
mainline for a while.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2009-05/msg00288.html
Do you intend to commit this to 4.4.1?
Joost
>
> Author: rguenth
> Date: Mon May 18 10:24:34 2009
> New Revision: 147659
>
> URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=147659
> Log:
> 2009-05-18 Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de>
>
> PR fortran/40168
> * trans-expr.c (gfc_trans_zero_assign): For local array
> destinations use an assignment from an empty constructor.
>
> * gfortran.dg/array_memset_2.f90: Adjust.
>
> Modified:
> trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
> trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c
> trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
> trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/array_memset_2.f90
>
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40168
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40168] missing unrolling/scalarization/reassoc/free
2009-05-16 9:35 [Bug middle-end/40168] New: missing unrolling/scalarization/reassoc/free jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2009-06-06 7:08 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
@ 2009-06-14 12:31 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2009-06-14 13:40 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
19 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: rguenther at suse dot de @ 2009-06-14 12:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-06-14 12:31 -------
Subject: Re: missing
unrolling/scalarization/reassoc/free
On Sat, 6 Jun 2009, jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk wrote:
> ------- Comment #16 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-06-06 07:08 -------
> (In reply to comment #13)
> > Subject: Bug 40168
>
> Richard, this empty constructor patch was also OKed for 4.4 and has been on
> mainline for a while.
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2009-05/msg00288.html
>
> Do you intend to commit this to 4.4.1?
Yes, I had already bootstrapped & tested the patch on the branch. I just
didn't manage to find the time to commit it yet.
Richard.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40168
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40168] missing unrolling/scalarization/reassoc/free
2009-05-16 9:35 [Bug middle-end/40168] New: missing unrolling/scalarization/reassoc/free jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2009-06-14 12:31 ` rguenther at suse dot de
@ 2009-06-14 13:40 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-12-18 14:32 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-12-18 14:45 ` [Bug tree-optimization/40168] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
19 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-06-14 13:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #18 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-14 13:39 -------
Subject: Bug 40168
Author: rguenth
Date: Sun Jun 14 13:39:37 2009
New Revision: 148469
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=148469
Log:
2009-06-14 Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de>
Backport from mainline
2009-05-18 Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de>
PR fortran/40168
* trans-expr.c (gfc_trans_zero_assign): For local array
destinations use an assignment from an empty constructor.
* gfortran.dg/array_memset_2.f90: Adjust.
Modified:
branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c
branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/array_memset_2.f90
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40168
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40168] missing unrolling/scalarization/reassoc/free
2009-05-16 9:35 [Bug middle-end/40168] New: missing unrolling/scalarization/reassoc/free jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
` (17 preceding siblings ...)
2009-06-14 13:40 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-12-18 14:32 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-12-18 14:45 ` [Bug tree-optimization/40168] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
19 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: pault at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-12-18 14:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #19 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-18 14:32 -------
Can this now be closed or has it transmogrified itself into something else?
Paul
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40168
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/40168] missing unrolling/scalarization/reassoc/free
2009-05-16 9:35 [Bug middle-end/40168] New: missing unrolling/scalarization/reassoc/free jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
` (18 preceding siblings ...)
2009-12-18 14:32 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-12-18 14:45 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
19 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-12-18 14:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #20 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-18 14:45 -------
There is still the issue about the 2nd testcase. It needs to be re-analyzed
and possibly simplified. But it's now a pure optimization issue, not a
frontend issue anymore.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Component|fortran |tree-optimization
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2009-12-18 14:45:13
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40168
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-12-18 14:45 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-05-16 9:35 [Bug middle-end/40168] New: missing unrolling/scalarization/reassoc/free jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2009-05-16 9:36 ` [Bug middle-end/40168] " jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2009-05-16 9:54 ` [Bug fortran/40168] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-05-16 10:04 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-05-16 11:19 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2009-05-16 11:20 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-05-16 11:31 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2009-05-16 11:39 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2009-05-16 12:20 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2009-05-16 12:39 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2009-05-16 13:46 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-05-16 14:48 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-05-18 8:53 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-05-18 10:25 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-05-18 12:20 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2009-05-27 11:01 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-06-06 7:08 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2009-06-14 12:31 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2009-06-14 13:40 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-12-18 14:32 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-12-18 14:45 ` [Bug tree-optimization/40168] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).