This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [gomp4] Some progress on #pragma omp simd
- From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- To: Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, "Iyer, Balaji V" <balaji dot v dot iyer at intel dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 10:23:31 -0700
- Subject: Re: [gomp4] Some progress on #pragma omp simd
- References: <20130424060117 dot GV12880 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <20130424062536 dot GW12880 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <20130424064054 dot GX12880 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <5178692F dot 2010902 at redhat dot com> <BF230D13CA30DD48930C31D40993300032A39A2B at FMSMSX101 dot amr dot corp dot intel dot com> <517C0B34 dot 3050804 at redhat dot com> <20130427181734 dot GX28963 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <51B8AE31 dot 7070808 at redhat dot com> <20130612173055 dot GA2336 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <51B8B1F8 dot 6040408 at redhat dot com> <20130612213617 dot GB2336 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <51BF43C0 dot 9080901 at redhat dot com>
On 06/17/2013 10:13 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> - data.simduid = tree_low_cst (gimple_call_arg (stmt, 0), 1);
> + data.simduid = gimple_call_arg (stmt, 0);
Doesn't this copy the ADDR_EXPR from the call into simduid?
> simduid_to_vf::hash (const value_type *p)
> {
> - return p->simduid;
> + return htab_hash_pointer (p->simduid);
... at which point this bit is meaningless since all ADDR_EXPRs must of course
have different pointers.
I think we should validate the DECL_P extracted from the call_arg, and store
that. The hash should use DECL_UID to minimize hash variation due to memory
layout.
r~