[PATCH] Fix for PR64081 in RTL loop unroller
Jeff Law
law@redhat.com
Fri Jan 16 16:54:00 GMT 2015
On 01/16/15 08:16, Zamyatin, Igor wrote:
>>> Not sure it's possible to merge DF_REG_DEF_CHAIN walk and
>> DF_REF_CHAIN walk...
>> OK. Just use the same overall structure if we can't pull the test out into a
>> single function that could be called from both places.
>>
>
> Thanks, is updated patch ok for trunk?
>
> Igor
>
>
> Changelog:
>
> gcc
>
> 2015-01-16 Igor Zamyatin <igor.zamyatin@intel.com>
>
> PR rtl-optimization/64081
> * loop-iv.c (def_pred_latch_p): New function.
> (latch_dominating_def): Allow specific cases with non-single
> definitions.
> (iv_get_reaching_def): Likewise.
> (check_complex_exit_p): New function.
> (check_simple_exit): Use check_complex_exit_p to allow certain cases
> with exits not executing on any iteration.
>
> testsuite
>
> 2014-01-16 Igor Zamyatin <igor.zamyatin@intel.com>
>
> PR rtl-optimization/64081
> * gcc.dg/pr64081.c: New test.
Just a few nits below. Approved with the nits fixed.
> +/* Checks that def is in an immediate predecessor of the latch block. */
> +
> +static bool
> +def_pred_latch_p (df_ref d_ref)
Use the actual parameter name in the comment and put it in caps, mention
the return values. Something like this:
/* Return true if D_REF is defined in an immediate predecessor of the
current loop's latch block. Otherwise return false. */
>
> + /* If we have single definition it has to be excuted on each iteration. */
s/excuted/executed/
> +/* Check whether exit is not simple but still good for further analysis.
> + Looks like such loops mostly are a result of jump threading. */
> +
> +static bool
> +check_complex_exit_p (struct loop* loop, basic_block bb)
/* Return true if LOOP has a complex exit, but is still good for further
analysis. Return false otherwise. BB is LOOP's exit block. */
With those comment fixes, this is OK for the trunk.
Thanks,
Jeff
More information about the Gcc-patches
mailing list