https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30609
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30609
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
The problem with the test case is that both sum and count
are transformational functions, i.e. they reduce the
rank.
So, ideally this would be translated into
real sum = 0.;
int count = 0;
for (i=0; i 0)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30609
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30609
Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30609
--- Comment #2 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-03 20:04 ---
I wouldn't expect this to be optimized as 'a0' creates temporary arrays in
different contexts. The same call used twice, as in PR22572, seems to be more
likely. WONTFIX?
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-06 08:39
---
Confirmed, although I'm not exactly sure how we could detect that. Maybe we
would need to add front-end optimization passes, between resolution and
translation...
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
