This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [lno] [patch] vectorizer update - loop bound

From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
To: Dorit Naishlos <DORIT at il dot ibm dot com>
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>, pop at gauvain dot u-strasbg dot fr, Toon Moene <toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 13:13:50 -0800
Subject: Re: [lno] [patch] vectorizer update - loop bound
References: <OFF95F5BB8.FBF6E26E-ONC2256E20.004BCC84-C2256E20.004CA89C@il.ibm.com> <OFBDF415F6.EE851556-ONC2256E20.0053D212-C2256E20.005A1583@il.ibm.com>

On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 06:23:57PM +0200, Dorit Naishlos wrote:
> Shouldn't the array accesses be normalized to start from 0
> when the Fortran program is translated to the trees?

Certainly not that early, no.

> If not, can I query what was the source language and treat Fortran
> programs differently than C (e.g., consider accesses to index i as
> accesses to index (i-1) in case it's Fortran)?

Nothing fortran specific here.  The bounds of the array are stored
in TYPE_DOMAIN.  The base index is

	TYPE_MIN_VALUE (TYPE_DOMAIN (array_type))


r~

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [lno] [patch] vectorizer update - loop bound
  - From: Dorit Naishlos

References:
- Re: [lno] [patch] vectorizer update - loop bound
  - From: Dorit Naishlos
- Re: [lno] [patch] vectorizer update - loop bound
  - From: Dorit Naishlos

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]