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 3A3F53858415; Thu, 18 Apr 2024 17:35:26 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 3A3F53858415
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1713461726;
	bh=Ymds4C1LtUjf+sDUWLfgzFE4ZpFJyrUbIM7yLoggAZc=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=RumuAOTJDSCRb60Wlf3OBJICX9VhkBlIBAFV8oCEnNyi0JRmkITDNKydEb90vjifv
	 12x/mtRNbOg/wQxfYxUNrXrm9ueADFK1hwh5Y/R7JmMNe7lxYEENG6nqBl7xSuV38v
	 FEVNYKNWcoWk8x/r1J/ZNJoe6XAMU7qAL4KCRXPU=
From: "roger at nextmovesoftware dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/114767] gfortran AVX2 complex multiplication
 by (0d0,1d0) suboptimal
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2024 17:35:25 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: roger at nextmovesoftware 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: cc
Message-ID: <bug-114767-4-V4ofw7XAVy@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-114767-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-114767-4@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=3D114767

Roger Sayle <roger at nextmovesoftware dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |roger at nextmovesoftware =
dot com

--- Comment #3 from Roger Sayle <roger at nextmovesoftware dot com> ---
Richard has already changed this from "gfortran" to "tree-optimization", but
for the record, the C equivalent of this test case (with the same issue) is:

void scale_i(_Complex double *c, int n)
{
    for (int i=3D0; i<n; i++)
      c[i] *=3D __builtin_complex(0.0,1.0);
}=