This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Patch: Add #pragma ivdep support to the ME and C FE
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Tobias Burnus <burnus at net-b dot de>
- Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Richard Biener <rguenther at suse dot de>, Tobias Burnus <tobias dot burnus at physik dot fu-berlin dot de>, Frederic Riss <frederic dot riss at gmail dot com>, <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 14:33:47 +0000
- Subject: Re: Patch: Add #pragma ivdep support to the ME and C FE
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20131016142449 dot GA2553 at physik dot fu-berlin dot de> <alpine dot LNX dot 2 dot 00 dot 1310170959210 dot 11149 at zhemvz dot fhfr dot qr> <20131017083608 dot GC30970 at tucnak dot zalov dot cz> <52658A0A dot 7060809 at net-b dot de>
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Dear all,
> attached is a new version of the patch. Changes:
> * "#pragma GCC ivdep" instead of "#pragma ivdep"
> * Corrections to the error message in c-parser.c and a test case for it
> * New wording in the .texi and examples
> I am still not completely happy with the wording – and I am open for
> suggestions. In the example, I played safe and mention k < -m and k >=m; even
> if k >= 0 probably works.
> I also didn't know how to best state the reason for requiring a condition.
> (Internal reason: The annotation is attached to the condition - thus, it has
> to be present. External reason: For vectorization, there shouldn't be a
> branching in the body of the loop and without a condition in either the "for"
> header or in its body, one has an endless loop.)
> Do you have suggestions for a better wording? If not, is the patch okay for
> the trunk?
> Built and regtested (C only). [An all-language bootstrap + regtesting is
The C front-end changes in this version are OK.
Joseph S. Myers