> Tested on x86_64-suse-linux, OK for the mainline? I'll install the Fortran
> testcase once it is reduced because it takes a while to compile ATM.
Here it is, as reduced by Joost, installed on the mainline.
2015-11-10 Eric Botcazou
* gfortran.dg/pr68251.f90: New test.
--
Eric Bot
> Looks good to me.
Thanks.
> I wonder where you store the info on TARGET_MEM_REFs though? Or
> is IVOPTs prohibited from messing with such refs (pessmizing them)?
Yes, the latter:
* tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c (may_be_nonaddressable_p) : New.
Return true if reverse storage order.
On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I don't understand how this didn't show up sooner given the amount of testing,
> but there is a nasty overloading for the new REF_REVERSE_STORAGE_ORDER flag:
>
> #define REF_REVERSE_STORAGE_ORDER(NODE) \
>(TREE_CHECK2 (NODE, BIT_F
Hi,
I don't understand how this didn't show up sooner given the amount of testing,
but there is a nasty overloading for the new REF_REVERSE_STORAGE_ORDER flag:
#define REF_REVERSE_STORAGE_ORDER(NODE) \
(TREE_CHECK2 (NODE, BIT_FIELD_REF, MEM_REF)->base.u.bits.saturating_flag)
saturating_flag
