https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
--- Comment #32 from Richard Biener ---
But maybe I'm misunderstanding what you do - can you point to the respective
hunk in the patch?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
--- Comment #31 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #28)
> I’m reading the previous comments again:
>
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> > So to clarify the ARRAY_REF constraints - there is currently
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
--- Comment #30 from Mikael Morin ---
*** Bug 103671 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
--- Comment #28 from Mikael Morin ---
I’m reading the previous comments again:
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> So to clarify the ARRAY_REF constraints - there is currently no way to
> construct a valid ARRAY_REF where an index
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51891|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51839|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
--- Comment #24 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 19 Nov 2021, mikael at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
>
> --- Comment #23 from Mikael Morin ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
--- Comment #23 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #21)
> (In reply to Bernhard Reutner-Fischer from comment #17)
> > Do we want to address arrays always at position 0 (maybe to help graphite ?)
>
> Helping graphite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51791|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
--- Comment #21 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Bernhard Reutner-Fischer from comment #17)
> Do we want to address arrays always at position 0 (maybe to help graphite ?)
Helping graphite (and other loop optimizers) would be to not lower
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
--- Comment #20 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #19)
> (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #15)
> > One possibility would be to extend the patch Sandra posted at
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
--- Comment #19 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #15)
> One possibility would be to extend the patch Sandra posted at
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-January/055563.html
> to scalarization.
Probably
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51787|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
--- Comment #17 from Bernhard Reutner-Fischer ---
Do we want to address arrays always at position 0 (maybe to help graphite ?) or
would it be sufficient to just not dereference the array "before" the first
position like Mikael suggests in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
--- Comment #16 from Bernhard Reutner-Fischer ---
In addition to comment #1
here's an excerpt of an existing test with just one dimension:
$ cat f_pr86389.f90
! PR 19239. Check for various kinds of vector subscript. In this test,
! all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at codesourcery dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
--- Comment #14 from Mikael Morin ---
Created attachment 51787
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51787=edit
draft patch
This "fixes" the problem of negative index access, and adjusts vector subscript
handling, so that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
--- Comment #13 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #12)
> (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #11)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> >
> > > Is there any case where the frontend would make
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
--- Comment #12 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #11)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
>
> > Is there any case where the frontend would make 'data' point into the
> > middle of the array and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
--- Comment #11 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> Is there any case where the frontend would make 'data' point into the
> middle of the array and iteration over the array would end up accessing
> elements
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
So to clarify the ARRAY_REF constraints - there is currently no way to
construct a valid ARRAY_REF where an index does an access to memory before the
supplied
base object. TREE_OPERAND (array_ref, 0)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
Bernhard Reutner-Fischer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldot at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
So instead of doing *((T[0:] *)[ubound])[-idx] for accesses do
a[ubound - idx]?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
It would be much nicer if the array descriptor for idx(2:1:-1) would not
use a pointer to idx(2) as the data pointer but we'd instead still represent
it as a (1:2) array but with adjusted offset (2 instead
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Eric - does Ada have something like negative stride array accesses?
No, Ada does not have negative strides, all array accesses are based on the
lower bounds and counted in increasing memory addresses.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
32 matches
Mail list logo
