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 DF0DB3858C50; Mon,  8 Apr 2024 15:36:07 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org DF0DB3858C50
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1712590567;
	bh=/k9SxxRrN2ut2i/7DE0CcZFN6r/bJ7w5lfQ3qNzJb28=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=np8kynbfm8Dw7+LJ2P2550snGAEcTtdmcyCWUs01/4TguPJ4DD7FLRAyx0o2Q1Y+f
	 LxgYPgB4WNMuPNdHOlv+h039bC4PVHrOjSELZsZ5Wj0iJexGLlKLn8DtHKWMrCAISw
	 sV1u2vGab+Qru2Jm4g5+kEnUJqiMwBC7b6jKSCTw=
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/114635] OpenMP reductions fail dependency
 analysis
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2024 15:36:05 +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: rguenther at suse dot de
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-OxlItQ2Zal@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 #7 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
> Am 08.04.2024 um 16:55 schrieb tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org <gcc-bugzilla@=
gcc.gnu.org>:
>=20
> =EF=BB=BFhttps://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D114635
>=20
> --- Comment #6 from Tamar Christina <tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
>> Now, with SVE/RISCV vectors the actual vectorization factor is a poly_int
>> rather than constant.  One possibility would be to use VLA arrays in tho=
se
>> cases, but then it will be hard to undo that later, or allow both shrink=
ing
>> and growing the arrays and even turning them into VLA-like ones.
>=20
> I think they are already VLAs of some kind going into vect, unless I've
> misunderstood the declaration:
>=20
>  float D.28295[0:POLY_INT_CST [15, 16]];
>  float D.28293[0:POLY_INT_CST [15, 16]];
>  float D.28290[0:POLY_INT_CST [15, 16]];
>=20
> it looks like during vectorization they are lowered though.

Maybe it=E2=80=99s about upper vs lower bound when setting loop->safelen fr=
om
=E2=80=9Aunlimited=E2=80=98

> --
> You are receiving this mail because:
> You are on the CC list for the bug.=