https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84955
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |openacc, wrong-code
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2018-03-20
Component|fortran |middle-end
Target Milestone|--- |7.4
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Confirmed.
;; basic block 11, loop depth 0
;; pred: 22
;; 23
.offset.14 = (unsigned int) .offset.12;
.iter.1 = 0 + .offset.14;
D.3838 = .iter.1 / 10;
D.3839 = .iter.1 % 10;
D.3840 = (integer(kind=4)) D.3839;
...
.e_range.15 = MIN_EXPR <D.3844, D.3845>;
.e_offset.17 = GOACC_LOOP (OFFSET, 1, .e_range.15, .element_s.9, 0, -1, 0);
.e_bound.16 = GOACC_LOOP (BOUND, 1, .e_range.15, .element_s.9, 0, -1,
.e_offset.17);
.e_step.18 = GOACC_LOOP (STEP, 1, .e_range.15, .element_s.9, 0, -1);
if (.e_offset.17 < .e_bound.16)
;; succ: 23
notice we only have a single successor after a GIMPLE_COND. Looks like this
already after ompexp.
