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 26C9B3858CDB; Wed, 25 Oct 2023 17:05:46 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 26C9B3858CDB
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1698253547;
	bh=zop5RoCP3SabAousaVNQmbHcCvSof3JJW/9iUhjJfG4=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=umi2QBHsOpzwWRGA3y5S0bgljrF5WeYl7i3nayH/2V7eJ0seATTJWUego+9IAHiE9
	 kvT1I7q4FJDlzxtrFr5LyGdJasQToeJPROeQeQD/OGOx+4xFEykcVrfsm2Z5tHJL8M
	 9sOJ3od8S5cMs8Vq7tgkpww9sJpWBriK/uTuGz/8=
From: "tnfchris 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, 25 Oct 2023 17:05:46 +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: tnfchris 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-Zvqrh0xeVx@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 #15 from Tamar Christina <tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #14)
> Created attachment 56313 [details]
> inline minloc with mask
>=20
> This patch adds support for {min,max}loc with mask.

Awesome, thank you!

> It is not 100% testsuite clean as there are (runtime) error messages that
> regress slightly for maxloc_bounds_{4,5,6,7}.f90
>=20
>=20
> (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #11)
> >=20
> > > The problem could be with the initialization of loop iteration variab=
les.
> > > (...)
> > > Unfortunately, this conditional initialization seems to
> > > confuse the optimizers a lot.
> > >=20
> > On closer look, the conditional initialization doesn't seem to be that
> > confusing (at least in the problematic case), as it's removed early (cc=
p1)
> > in the pipeline.  The loop iteration variables remain initialized with =
phis,
> > but that's because of the loops.
>=20
> Unfortunately, this is true for rank 1 arrays, but not for higher ranks.
> Constant values are slowly propagated to the phi arguments as optimization
> passes are run, but no simplification of the control flow happens as soon=
 as
> multiple loop levels are involved.
>=20
> Need to look into the dim argument next.

It's very much appreciated! this should help greatly! Sorry I hadn't reply =
to
the previous message. Finishing up some work for stage-1.=