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 6B3AE3858D28; Wed, 11 Oct 2023 16:30:42 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 6B3AE3858D28
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1697041842;
	bh=k60iSciVe5+vrIvH39AcUnQbVQ0KGAFGKWpLSEqrMWU=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=UdCcW43UOFnLHW4xcgNGlNo1aOW/JXhkepESl7u2Pof/5eR2O8EOTMVFgR2sXAyMG
	 rh2q+QX8eCu4z9hNcoGQeBkX/ADFYLPJ0FVFiD48+pZ1AR23nok1oHoaoKD1jieTa/
	 RLn2MyWSkoWgs/Q+S6wcaoplbrxEx9I125ZC9K9s=
From: "mikael at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/90608] Inline non-scalar minloc/maxloc calls
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2023 16:30:41 +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: 9.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
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-90608-4-ZhkY9bozlc@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-90608-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-90608-4@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=3D90608

--- Comment #10 from Mikael Morin <mikael at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #8)
> (...) that is it was using too loops in a row in some cases.=20
>=20
... *two* loops in a row ...


(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #9)
>=20
> Thanks Mikael!
>=20
> That's already plenty of help! I can try to debug further after I finish =
my
> current patches.  Would it be ok if I ask questions when I do?

Yes, of course.

I forgot to precise that the patch above supports only calls without any
optional args.  Allowing non-DIM arguments should work, as the code support=
ing
them is already there for the scalar case.  For the DIM argument, it's a bit
more work.  I'm not sure, but maybe the scalarizer support for reductions (=
SUM
or PRODUCT with DIM arg) can be used to support it.=