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 548443858CDB; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 08:15:00 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 548443858CDB
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1713168900;
	bh=gllrdeAAlaaOGABnQPlWLMo6GmGO+g/hPbxC1HA9mSI=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=JXgewNAQb7WeAgHOkRC1rj+IjzwUMym33tbep29rxQdKuDJo2LuLFp71a+OilMdnV
	 EsZnyC5nCO1GCsB7zhsyqeUUn9VP5gZgWl43g4ZwfMrdupxwpgB0/CMZr/O0yBuNIK
	 Sz7gDA5dDSFnFSyYQqWu6/bJFzn3VXlJfjTENnsg=
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
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-qURoua1jjw@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 #16 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #14)
> I think
>=20
>   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);
>=20
> should simply become
>=20
>         safelen_int =3D constant_upper_bound_with_limit (val, INT_MAX);
>=20
> ?  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 he=
re?

OMP_CLAUSE_SAFELEN_EXPR is always an INTEGER_CST, the FEs verify that and e=
rror
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 s=
et
that way?=