Re: [FORTRAN PATCH] PR 30404: Rewrite nested FORALL mask expansion

["Roger Sayle" <roger at eyesopen dot com>]

Hi Steve,

On Mon, January 15, 2007 5:02 pm, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 13, 2007 at 04:04:05PM -0700, Roger Sayle wrote:
>> If someone could do the usual benchmarking and conformance testing,
>> I'd be interested to know if there's a positive or negative impact.
>
> Roger, I scanned my work/ directory where I store the Fortran
> code I've snarfed from the internet.  With over million lines of
> code, there is exact ZERO ocurrences of FORALL. :(

Doh!  I wonder how much of this is a chicken-and-egg problem?  If most
fortran compilers currently generate inefficient code for these constructs
and are unable to take advantage of the vectorization benefits, I suspect
that many programmers would use alternative idioms.


> I think the patch is OK for trunk.  See below for one change.

Many thanks for the review.  Grr!  My apologies for the issue with the
new testcase.  I discovered during regtesting that although manual testing
with f951 worked fine, I needed to add "! { dg-options "-std=gnu" }" in
order to pass "make check".  Unfortunately, I accidentally posted the
earlier version without that tweak.  However, I much prefer your suggested
solution to make the testcase more portable.  Committed with your change.

Thanks again.

Roger
--