This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [graphite] Remove checks for flag_loop_strip_mine, flag_loop_block, flag_loop_interchange in graphite_trans_bb_block.
- From: Tobias Grosser <grosser at fim dot uni-passau dot de>
- To: Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo dot msbb dot uc dot edu>
- Cc: Sebastian Pop <sebpop at gmail dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, rajagopal dwarak <dwarak dot rajagopal at amd dot com>, Jagasia Harsha <harsha dot jagasia at amd dot com>, Konrad Trifunovic <konrad dot trifunovic at gmail dot com>, louis-noel dot pouchet at inria dot fr, Cédric Bastoul <cedric dot bastoul at inria dot fr>, Karthik A <chill dot shanky at gmail dot com>, Harle Christophe <christophe dot harle at amd dot com>, Albert Cohen <Albert dot Cohen at inria dot fr>, Adrien ELICHE <aeliche at isty dot uvsq dot fr>, Sjodin Jan <Jan dot Sjodin at amd dot com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 11:42:33 -0300
- Subject: Re: [graphite] Remove checks for flag_loop_strip_mine, flag_loop_block, flag_loop_interchange in graphite_trans_bb_block.
- References: <1218738013.1353.52.camel@tobilaptop> <20080815134543.GA25781@bromo.msbb.uc.edu>
Hi Jack,
On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 09:45 -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 03:20:13PM -0300, Tobias Grosser wrote:
> > Hi graphities, hi world,
> >
> > as we are discussing about merging graphite to trunk, I think more people
> > will be interested in graphite changes. So I will send all my patches
> > to gcc-patches.
> >
>
> Tobias,
> As I mentioned, I am seeing the aermod benchmark fail to produce an
> executable using the proposed patch that I applied by hand to the gcc trunk
> after applying the rest of the graphite branch changes. I do see that the
> channel benchmark now compiles. I am sure this is unrelated but I noticed
> that from the gcc-cvs checkin for this patch...
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/branches/graphite/gcc/graphite.c?r1=139130&r2=139129&pathrev=139130
>
> that the change...
>
> @@ -4469,7 +4461,8 @@ graphite_trans_loop_block (VEC (graphite_bb_p, heap) *bbs, int loops)
> int stride_size = 64;
>
> for (i = 0; VEC_iterate (graphite_bb_p, bbs, i, gb); i++)
> - transform_done = graphite_trans_bb_block (gb, stride_size, loops) || transform_done;
> + transform_done |= graphite_trans_bb_block (gb, stride_size, loops);
> +
> return transform_done;
> }
>
> in the original patch from gcc-patches has now become...
>
> @@ -4545,6 +4536,8 @@
>
> for (i = 0; VEC_iterate (graphite_bb_p, bbs, i, gb); i++)
> transform_done |= graphite_trans_bb_block (gb, stride_size, loops);
> +
> + transform_done |= graphite_trans_bb_block (gb, stride_size, loops);
> return transform_done;
> }
>
> Is this a typo in the checkin since you now have to sets of calls
> to graphite_trans_bb_block?
Sure, my fault. This line is useless, that was a mistake during
patching.
Sorry.
Tobi
> Jack