public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug fortran/107424] [13 Regression] ICE in gfc_trans_omp_do, at fortran/trans-openmp.cc:5397 - and wrong code - with non-rectangular loops Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2023 11:07:43 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-107424-4-NYbSasXhEL@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-107424-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107424 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- I think there are multiple issues. For the do i = 1, 9, 1 case, the bug is that we: gfc_init_se (&se, NULL); gfc_conv_expr_val (&se, code->ext.iterator->end); gfc_add_block_to_block (pblock, &se.pre); to = gfc_evaluate_now (se.expr, pblock); and therefore evaluate the upper expression (but ditto the lower expression) before the loop nest into a temporary rather than keeping it directly in the expression. That is fine for the cases where the expressions are loop invariant, which was always the case before non-rectangular loops were introduced, but is not ok for non-rectangular loops. I think the above patch deals with that somehow, but haven't studied yet exactly how. Don't know about the step2 case on the outer loop, but guess it is similar to the below thing too. Another problem is that for steps other than -1 and 1, we use the non-simple expansion: /* STEP is not 1 or -1. Use: for (count = 0; count < (to + step - from) / step; count++) { dovar = from + count * step; body; cycle_label:; } */ If the inner loop of non-rectangular loop nest (well, in particular whenever from or to uses some outer loop iterator and is one of the allowed non-rectangular forms): var-outer var-outer + a2 a2 + var-outer var-outer - a2 a2 - var-outer a1 * var-outer a1 * var-outer + a2 a2 + a1 * var-outer a1 * var-outer - a2 a2 - a1 * var-outer var-outer * a1 var-outer * a1 + a2 a2 + var-outer * a1 var-outer * a1 - a2 a2 - var-outer * a1 then using the non-simple expansion just can't work, the middle-end expects the init and cond expressions to be literally something from the above list, if that is turned into something divided by step, we've lost. Now, the reason I've added the above expansion is because the middle-end representation was chosen to be of the C/C++ loops and I wasn't sure if the Fortran DO loop semantics can be easily mapped to it. For the non-rectangular loops, I'm afraid we have to, or have some flag on each of the OMP_FOR/GOMP_FOR loops to request Fortran semantics. If we do the latter, we'd need to adjust the middle-end (omp_extract_for_data, everything that computes number of iterations, omp-expand loop expansion) to handle that. And I believe the non-simple outer loop is the same thing, for the non-rectangular loops the middle-end relies on the inner loop expressions that refer to var-outer to be actually the outer loop's iterator. So if we use the non-simple expansion for the outer loop: for (count = 0; count < (to + step - from) / step; count++) { dovar = from + count * step; body; that would mean remapping the var_outer (aka dovar) in those expressions to count based computations.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-13 11:07 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2022-10-26 18:37 [Bug fortran/107424] New: [13 Regression] ICE in gfc_trans_omp_do, at fortran/trans-openmp.cc:5397 gscfq@t-online.de 2022-10-27 8:50 ` [Bug fortran/107424] " marxin at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-10-28 11:35 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-01-11 15:30 ` [Bug fortran/107424] [13 Regression] ICE in gfc_trans_omp_do, at fortran/trans-openmp.cc:5397 - and wrong code - with non-rectangular loops burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-01-11 15:59 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-01-13 10:46 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-01-13 10:53 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-01-13 11:07 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org [this message] 2023-01-13 11:46 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-01-13 11:51 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-01-18 22:24 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-01-25 14:50 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-02-09 14:51 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-02-09 14:54 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-04-26 6:56 ` [Bug fortran/107424] [13/14 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-07-17 11:15 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-07-19 8:19 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-07-19 8:27 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=bug-107424-4-NYbSasXhEL@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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).