This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PR65637] Fix ssa-handling code in expand_omp_for_static_chunk
- From: Tom de Vries <Tom_deVries at mentor dot com>
- To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 13:41:17 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PR65637] Fix ssa-handling code in expand_omp_for_static_chunk
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <552E6341 dot 4040401 at mentor dot com>
On 15/04/15 15:10, Tom de Vries wrote:
Hi,
This patch series fixes PR65637.
Currently, ssa-handling code in expand_omp_for_static_chunk is dead and
not exercised by testing.
Ssa-handling code in omp-low.c is only triggered by
pass_parallelize_loops, and that pass doesn't specify a chunk size on
the GIMPLE_OMP_FOR it constructs, so that only exercises the
expand_omp_for_static_nochunk path.
Using the attached trigger patch, we excercise the ssa-handling code in
expand_omp_for_static_chunk.
>
> 1. Fix gcc_assert in expand_omp_for_static_chunk
> 2. Fix inner loop phi in expand_omp_for_static_chunk
> 3. Handle 2 preds for fin_bb in expand_omp_for_static_chunk
I'm posting an updated series.
1. Add param parloops-chunk-size
2. Handle simple latch bb in expand_omp_for_static_chunk
3. Fix gcc_assert in expand_omp_for_static_chunk
4. Fix inner loop phi in expand_omp_for_static_chunk
5. Handle 2 preds for fin_bb in expand_omp_for_static_chunk
There are two new patches, (1) and (2) in the new numbering.
The first patch adds a param parloops-chunk-size, which means the
ssa-handling code in expand_omp_for_static_chunk is no longer dead.
The second patch handles simple latches in expand_omp_for_static_chunk,
similar to the fix for PR66846 in expand_omp_for_static_nochunk.
The rest of the patches are now updated to include the testcases (and
patch number 4 has been updated to handle simple latches).
The patch series has been bootstrapped and reg-tested on x86_64.
I'll post the patches from the patch series individually. The first two
in response to this email, the latter three in response to the earlier
submissions.
Thanks,
- Tom