This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Vectorizing HIRLAM 4: complicated access patterns examined.
- From: Tobias dot Schlueter at Physik dot Uni-Muenchen dot DE
- To: Paul Thomas <paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr>
- Cc: Toon Moene <toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl>, fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org,gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 14:01:43 +0100
- Subject: Re: Vectorizing HIRLAM 4: complicated access patterns examined.
- References: <E1EVDBS-0006ob-4S@laptop.moene.indiv.nluug.nl> <436758AA.4060902@wanadoo.fr>
[ 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.
- Tobi