From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12928 invoked by alias); 21 Nov 2011 17:25:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 12913 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Nov 2011 17:25:35 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 17:25:13 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pALHPDNk027999 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 21 Nov 2011 12:25:13 -0500 Received: from tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com (tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com [10.16.42.4]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pALHPCPk022705 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 21 Nov 2011 12:25:12 -0500 Received: from tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com (tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com [127.0.0.1]) by tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pALHPB06009071; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 18:25:11 +0100 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id pALHPAqp009070; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 18:25:10 +0100 Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 18:26:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Razya Ladelsky Cc: GCC Patches , Richard Guenther Subject: Re: [PATCH, take 2] Fix PR tree-optimization/49960 ,Fix self data dependence Message-ID: <20111121172510.GK27242@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <20111121125707.GG27242@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com> <20111121135915.GH27242@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com> <20111121150754.GJ27242@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-11/txt/msg02127.txt.bz2 On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 06:56:55PM +0200, Razya Ladelsky wrote: > I have some non-affine cases for which compute_affine_dependence is called > (as it is called for > ALL dependences from compte_all_depepndences()), and no harm is done. > I looked a little bit closer into the code, and this is what happens for > non affine accesses: > > initialize_data_dependence_relation() assigns > DDR_ARE_DEPENDENT (res) = chrec_dont_know for the dr. It can be chrec_known too (that's actually the only interesting case for us unless it is a read-read ddr), but you're right that likely object_address_invariant_in_loop_p should be false. > Then, compute_affine_depepndence() > tests if (DDR_ARE_DEPENDENT (ddr) == NULL_TREE), and does nothing > otherwise. > Since the dr was initialized with chrec_dont_know, no harm is done. > > Anyway, since it is useless for your gather case, I'll just remove it, > along with compute_self_dependence(). > > OK? Yes, patch preapproved. Jakub