From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22019 invoked by alias); 6 Jan 2011 16:43:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 22011 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Jan 2011 16:43:45 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 16:43:38 +0000 From: "jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug middle-end/45505] [4.6 Regression] gfortran.dg/pr25923.f90 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.6.0 X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 16:59:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-01/txt/msg00503.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45505 --- Comment #15 from Martin Jambor 2011-01-06 16:41:34 UTC --- I've played around with this a bit more and came to the conclusion that we could refine SRA heuristics some more to not scalarize this if we added two more attributes to struct access, one meaning "read as a scalar" and another for "written as a scalar." (I'm quite confident this would work, I have a different patch that works too but it uses a rather ad-hoc approach). However, I'm not sure whether we should be adding more attributes when we have already quite a few just in order to be able to make slightly better judgments about single-field structures like this one. (Maybe we really could have a location for return instead?). In either case, it is nothing for stage4. BTW, is this even a 4.6 regression?