https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608
--- Comment #22 from Tamar Christina <tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #21) > (In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #20) > > Hi Mikael, > > > > I did regression testing on x86_64 and AArch64 and only found one test-ism. > > > > I think I understand most of the patch to be able to deal with any fallout, > > would it be ok if I fix the test-ism and submit the patch on your behalf? > > > > It would be a shame to let it bitrot. > > > > Sorry. In the last days, I submitted a few small minloc-related patches > found while working on this PR, and should be able to submit the first > series (inline minloc without dim argument) this week. Ah ok, I'll wait for you then, thanks! > > You can submit on my behalf if you prefer; it would definitely accelerate > progress on this topic. > > What do you mean by test-ism? I think this was just me, I had tested the minloc patch on top of some additional changes to IVopts that mostly help fortran code. At the time gfortran.dg/maxloc_bounds_[4-7].f90 started failing and I had assumed that it had to do with the inlining. But it looks like they were a bug in my IVopts patch as they're no longer failing with the new patches.
