From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id CD2403858C53; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 08:06:11 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org CD2403858C53
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1713168371;
	bh=7LVWUcAt6FlwDJcuVrJUKoVzsxuDzR9E7W4/OuXff1E=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=DrEgChMIZJhb/wQYTHhPgFcvuuSGO5zP4a/gkknCjAenTyF6qgLQ3l9SUSI1XH3Jh
	 2/cfYc3DQ+uG2+yhyh+fQ/dd1zu0qSkRlpg1gS7nuKDnSqkBQE0O8C+yl7OWwopSOI
	 K3dA4GL3y5TYOk3XWa8CYVt1LPfwvhuvgiyQTxYE=
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/114635] OpenMP reductions fail dependency
 analysis
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 08:06:11 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization, openmp
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-114635-4-7kR3vtM8Y4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-114635-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-114635-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D114635

--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I think

  if (safelen)
    {
      poly_uint64 val;
      safelen =3D OMP_CLAUSE_SAFELEN_EXPR (safelen);
      if (!poly_int_tree_p (safelen, &val))
        safelen_int =3D 0;
      else
        safelen_int =3D MIN (constant_lower_bound (val), INT_MAX);

should simply become

        safelen_int =3D constant_upper_bound_with_limit (val, INT_MAX);

?  Usually targets do have a limit on the actual length but I see
constant_upper_bound_with_limit doesn't query such.  But it would
be a more appropriate way to say there might be an actual target limit here=
?=