From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 1BCD33858407; Wed, 10 Jan 2024 18:24:41 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 1BCD33858407
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1704911081;
	bh=fHC398wR5EWAzJUAD6ic84d+iwC3G73tlMS+AYV/SdA=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=WJ1zItzCmlCwx+qmeK+WnCPdvUAC98gNsMsbGsBcKKx9EPdXLIDLQEABE3+qX5qd7
	 rZNFeMgPqUkuSMdJk84iFG8miNEjS/QnYhagbAcUo4vCuyIWjGi5EXJE+Y4VBvc2rc
	 Uc/luAAkub44rhPGb1SYIrgJAV3hlfS7TPjNRd2Y=
From: "ivan.pribec at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/113305] ICE with do concurrent and ivdep
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 18:24:40 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ivan.pribec at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-113305-4-vkLrxSdGxs@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-113305-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-113305-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D113305

--- Comment #3 from Ivan Pribec <ivan.pribec at gmail dot com> ---
In the mail archive
(https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/fortran/2014-02/msg00077.html) I've read a
message implying that do concurrent gets translated into a regular for-loop
annotated with "#pragma ivdep", which assures the loop optimizer there are =
no
loop-carried dependencies. That said, I'm aware there is no good reason why
you'd want to use this directive on a do concurrent loop.=