public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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 08:14:59 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-114635-4-qURoua1jjw@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-114635-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114635

--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #14)
> I think
> 
>   if (safelen)
>     {
>       poly_uint64 val;
>       safelen = OMP_CLAUSE_SAFELEN_EXPR (safelen);
>       if (!poly_int_tree_p (safelen, &val))
>         safelen_int = 0;
>       else
>         safelen_int = MIN (constant_lower_bound (val), INT_MAX);
> 
> should simply become
> 
>         safelen_int = 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?

OMP_CLAUSE_SAFELEN_EXPR is always an INTEGER_CST, the FEs verify that and error
if it is not.  So, I must say I don't really understand parts of the
r8-5649-g9d2f08ab97be
changes.  I can understand the intent to make max_vf a poly_int, but don't
understand why safelen should be, what would it mean and when it would be set
that way?

  parent reply	other threads:[~2024-04-15  8:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-04-08  9:58 [Bug tree-optimization/114635] New: " tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-04-08 12:02 ` [Bug tree-optimization/114635] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-04-08 12:19 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-04-08 12:26 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-04-08 12:32 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-04-08 12:35 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-04-08 14:55 ` tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-04-08 15:36 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2024-04-10  6:53 ` kugan at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-04-15  7:44 ` kugan at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-04-15  7:45 ` kugan at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-04-15  7:49 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-04-15  7:57 ` kugan at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-04-15  8:00 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-04-15  8:06 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-04-15  8:08 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2024-04-15  8:14 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2024-04-15  8:18 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2024-04-15  9:06 ` kugan at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-05-14 15:24 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-114635-4-qURoua1jjw@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).