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 60CE43858D34; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 07:49:43 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 60CE43858D34
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1713167383;
	bh=RuUx6+JP9f500Yz8enYr2QQbDJ9d891lCNtlza2ikyY=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=lRkSQH922uFys0REpPBQj+N7XjiQnXHigaYP5qx4ByAfIcNFBfpbc6fqI4pv2xX+4
	 6JoS2DK0yUl4/4h8kvmcpkyS7h34HZa+w3Tzx+Y9iMqB+Du7SJTr5mesXcracMtD68
	 1UZ3GbzoCfld6UTSl3lAjm+I/JCNg9lK84FcPxe0=
From: "jakub 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 07:49:42 +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: jakub 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-TA10vtnNN9@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 #11 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to kugan from comment #9)
> Looking at the options, looks to me that making loop->safelen a poly_in is
> the way to go. (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> > The OpenMP safelen clause argument is a scalar integer, so using poly_i=
nt
> > for something that must be an int doesn't make sense.
> > Though, the above testcase actually doesn't use safelen clause, so safe=
len
> > is there effectively infinity.
> Thanks. I was looking at this to see if there is a way to handle this
> differently. Looks to me that making loop->safelen a poly_int is the way =
to
> handle at least the case when omp safelen clause is not provided.

Why?
Then it just is INT_MAX value, which is a magic value that says that it is
infinity.
No need to say it is a poly_int infinity.=