Re: Vectorizing HIRLAM 4: complicated access patterns examined.

[Tobias dot Schlueter at Physik dot Uni-Muenchen dot DE]

Quoting Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>:
> On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 02:01:43PM +0100,
> Tobias.Schlueter@Physik.Uni-Muenchen.DE wrote:
> > [ Bringing this back to fortran@, taking the optimizer guys out of CC: ]
> >
> > Quoting Toon Moene:
> > > I still have to construct a bug report of something that confuses the
> parser
> > > and that basically looks like this:
> > >
> > >      IMPLICIT CHARACTER*8 (Y)
> > >      CHARACTER*11 Y1, Y2, Y3
> > >      ...
> > >      YA = 'D' // Y1 // Y2(1:3) // Y3(1:3) //
> > >     1     // YB(1:5)
> > >           1
> > > Unclassifiable statement at (1)
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, if I reduce the code to this one (continued) line and the
> > > necessary declarations, it doesn't fail ;-)
> >
> > Does this fail as long as you keep the type implicit?  This reminds me of
> > another PR, where the parser would decide too early that it had seen an
> array
> > range instead of a substring, which would lead to these kinds of niceties
> > further down the line.  Unfortunately, I couldn't find this bug in
> bugzilla,
> > looks like its PR's summary is not very descriptive.
>
> You mean PR18833?

Yes, but I don't have time right now to investigate if this is indeed the same
parser problem.  The patch for 18833 only added a special case for
EQUIVALENCEs, so it might well be.

- Tobi