This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [GSoC] generation of Gimple code from isl_ast_node_if
- From: Roman Gareev <gareevroman at gmail dot com>
- To: Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser dot es>
- Cc: Mircea Namolaru <mircea dot namolaru at inria dot fr>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 20:16:29 +0600
- Subject: Re: [GSoC] generation of Gimple code from isl_ast_node_if
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CABGF_gfK8dqg1WnWODOf0TjmDGpk4_609oKiiBhSq5giE=c-kw at mail dot gmail dot com> <53D37432 dot 3000107 at grosser dot es> <CABGF_gdGO-65VK1N_efnx1PG7XZkAfDRw15F7oQhXPPC8_S86w at mail dot gmail dot com> <53D39A4A dot 2000707 at grosser dot es> <CABGF_gdBGxsPNYGyTTV8u9rtpWeAVispRwVaVdu8TaZr7s_NKQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <53D3A70F dot 40904 at grosser dot es> <CABGF_gdnepHgNskSf4_DuDG7oGsjVERv7YGGSXKopoC2fjqi4w at mail dot gmail dot com> <53D3B608 dot 6030704 at grosser dot es>
> I would still add a test case which does not contain a reduction (+=)
> and where graphite is not duplicating pbbs.
> Help for what? I was looking to create a simple test case. Is there still an
> open bug?
Sorry, I thought, we should add this test case to be able to test
graphite without patch related to graphite-sese-to-poly.c (patch1).
> Sorry Roman. I am still confused. Are we looking for a test case or are we
> still trying to understand an issue. Specifically, do we still incorrectly
> transform the code even after your isl_id_for_pbb() patch?
I gives a wrong answer without patch1. The code is transformed
correctly with this patch.
--
Cheers, Roman Gareev.