* [Bug tree-optimization/39129] The meaning of 'BB' in "too many BBs in loop"
2009-02-08 2:25 [Bug tree-optimization/39129] New: The meaning of 'BB' in "too many BBs in loop" lanurmi at iki dot fi
@ 2009-02-08 10:23 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-02-26 23:35 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-02-08 10:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-08 10:23 -------
Confirmed. Even spelling out "basic-block" here isn't going to be too useful
to the occasional programmer. I know that it is sometimes even just a
non-empty latch block that triggers this, so even "control flow in loop"
wouldn't be entirely correct (but may, in more complex cases, hint at the
source of the problem).
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |irar at gcc dot gnu dot org,
| |dorit at gcc dot gnu dot org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Keywords| |diagnostic
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2009-02-08 10:23:25
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39129
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/39129] The meaning of 'BB' in "too many BBs in loop"
2009-02-08 2:25 [Bug tree-optimization/39129] New: The meaning of 'BB' in "too many BBs in loop" lanurmi at iki dot fi
2009-02-08 10:23 ` [Bug tree-optimization/39129] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-02-26 23:35 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-02-27 20:15 ` lanurmi at iki dot fi
` (6 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-02-26 23:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-26 23:35 -------
BB is a copy acronym in computer science. And Basic block is a common term in
compilers. Really this warning is not useful for most users anyways.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severity|trivial |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39129
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/39129] The meaning of 'BB' in "too many BBs in loop"
2009-02-08 2:25 [Bug tree-optimization/39129] New: The meaning of 'BB' in "too many BBs in loop" lanurmi at iki dot fi
2009-02-08 10:23 ` [Bug tree-optimization/39129] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-02-26 23:35 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-02-27 20:15 ` lanurmi at iki dot fi
2009-05-31 10:55 ` irar at il dot ibm dot com
` (5 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: lanurmi at iki dot fi @ 2009-02-27 20:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from lanurmi at iki dot fi 2009-02-27 20:15 -------
Well yes, the meaning of basic block is not self-explanatory either. But at
least it is a much better search term than just 'BB'. And if someone comes up
with something even better, I'm certainly not against it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39129
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/39129] The meaning of 'BB' in "too many BBs in loop"
2009-02-08 2:25 [Bug tree-optimization/39129] New: The meaning of 'BB' in "too many BBs in loop" lanurmi at iki dot fi
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2009-02-27 20:15 ` lanurmi at iki dot fi
@ 2009-05-31 10:55 ` irar at il dot ibm dot com
2009-05-31 12:15 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: irar at il dot ibm dot com @ 2009-05-31 10:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from irar at il dot ibm dot com 2009-05-31 10:55 -------
So, will "too many basic blocks in loop" be good enough? Because this is what
it is, the reason that the loop form is not suitable for the vectorizer is that
there are too many basic blocks in it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39129
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/39129] The meaning of 'BB' in "too many BBs in loop"
2009-02-08 2:25 [Bug tree-optimization/39129] New: The meaning of 'BB' in "too many BBs in loop" lanurmi at iki dot fi
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2009-05-31 10:55 ` irar at il dot ibm dot com
@ 2009-05-31 12:15 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-05-31 12:33 ` irar at il dot ibm dot com
` (3 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-05-31 12:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-31 12:14 -------
Definitely spelling out basic-block is an improvement. Though it would be nice
to use 'control-flow' when appropriate, if we can exclude the non-empty
latch case from this.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39129
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/39129] The meaning of 'BB' in "too many BBs in loop"
2009-02-08 2:25 [Bug tree-optimization/39129] New: The meaning of 'BB' in "too many BBs in loop" lanurmi at iki dot fi
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2009-05-31 12:15 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-05-31 12:33 ` irar at il dot ibm dot com
2009-05-31 15:27 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: irar at il dot ibm dot com @ 2009-05-31 12:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from irar at il dot ibm dot com 2009-05-31 12:33 -------
For non-empty latch block we actually print "not vectorized: unexpected loop
form." So I can change it to "not vectorized: non-empty latch block", and
instead of "too many BBs" I can write "control flow in loop".
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39129
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/39129] The meaning of 'BB' in "too many BBs in loop"
2009-02-08 2:25 [Bug tree-optimization/39129] New: The meaning of 'BB' in "too many BBs in loop" lanurmi at iki dot fi
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2009-05-31 12:33 ` irar at il dot ibm dot com
@ 2009-05-31 15:27 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-06-01 8:15 ` irar at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-06-01 8:20 ` irar at il dot ibm dot com
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-05-31 15:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-31 15:27 -------
I see. Unexpected loop form is better for the user I guess, so just change
the other part. Thx.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39129
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/39129] The meaning of 'BB' in "too many BBs in loop"
2009-02-08 2:25 [Bug tree-optimization/39129] New: The meaning of 'BB' in "too many BBs in loop" lanurmi at iki dot fi
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2009-05-31 15:27 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-06-01 8:15 ` irar at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-06-01 8:20 ` irar at il dot ibm dot com
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: irar at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-06-01 8:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from irar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-01 08:15 -------
Subject: Bug 39129
Author: irar
Date: Mon Jun 1 08:15:01 2009
New Revision: 148036
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=148036
Log:
PR tree-optimization/39129
* tree-vect-loop-manip.c (conservative_cost_threshold): Change the
printed message.
(vect_do_peeling_for_loop_bound): Use
LOOP_REQUIRES_VERSIONING_FOR_ALIGNMENT and
LOOP_REQUIRES_VERSIONING_FOR_ALIAS macros.
(vect_loop_versioning): Likewise.
(vect_create_cond_for_alias_checks): Fix indentation.
* tree-vectorizer.h (struct _loop_vec_info): Fix indentation of the
macros.
(LOOP_REQUIRES_VERSIONING_FOR_ALIGNMENT): Define.
(LOOP_REQUIRES_VERSIONING_FOR_ALIAS): Likewise.
* tree-vect-loop.c (vect_analyze_loop_form): Change "too many BBs" to
"control flow in loop".
(vect_estimate_min_profitable_iters): Use
LOOP_REQUIRES_VERSIONING_FOR_ALIGNMENT and
LOOP_REQUIRES_VERSIONING_FOR_ALIAS macros.
* tree-vect-data-refs.c (vect_enhance_data_refs_alignment): Likewise.
(vect_create_data_ref_ptr): Don't mention array dimension in printing.
* tree-vect-stmts.c (vectorizable_store): Replace the check that the
statement belongs to a group of strided accesses with the exact code
check.
(vectorizable_load): Likewise.
* tree-vect-slp.c (vect_analyze_slp_instance): Spell out "basic block".
(vect_slp_analyze_bb, vect_slp_transform_bb): Likewise.
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/tree-vect-data-refs.c
trunk/gcc/tree-vect-loop-manip.c
trunk/gcc/tree-vect-loop.c
trunk/gcc/tree-vect-slp.c
trunk/gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c
trunk/gcc/tree-vectorizer.h
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39129
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/39129] The meaning of 'BB' in "too many BBs in loop"
2009-02-08 2:25 [Bug tree-optimization/39129] New: The meaning of 'BB' in "too many BBs in loop" lanurmi at iki dot fi
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2009-06-01 8:15 ` irar at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-06-01 8:20 ` irar at il dot ibm dot com
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: irar at il dot ibm dot com @ 2009-06-01 8:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from irar at il dot ibm dot com 2009-06-01 08:20 -------
Fixed.
--
irar at il dot ibm dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39129
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread