From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24331 invoked by alias); 14 Dec 2012 17:09:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 24310 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Dec 2012 17:09:01 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,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; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 17:08:53 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qBEH8qi6029890 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 14 Dec 2012 12:08:52 -0500 Received: from zalov.redhat.com (vpn1-6-211.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.6.211]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qBEH8jtH029161 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 14 Dec 2012 12:08:51 -0500 Received: from zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zalov.redhat.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qBEH8a3u016667; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 18:08:38 +0100 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by zalov.cz (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id qBEH8WND016666; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 18:08:32 +0100 Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 17:09:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: "Iyer, Balaji V" Cc: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH][Cilkplus] Fix pragma simd info being lost Message-ID: <20121214170830.GA2315@tucnak.redhat.com> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <20121214165843.GZ2315@tucnak.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: 2012-12/txt/msg00989.txt.bz2 On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 05:01:48PM +0000, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: > > Why do you think fatal_error is the right thing here? Why doesn't normal error > > work? Generally, if one function contains 10 #pragma simd loops that require > > vectorization and 5 out of them aren't vectorized, it is nicer for users to be told > > about all 5 of them, rather than just the first one. > > fatal_error will exit immediately. > > The #pragma simd assert requires the compiler to halt compilation if the > loop is not vectorized. This is why I used fatal_error. The default case > is noassert. The compilation is halted even with error, compiler will exit with non-zero exit status, won't compile any further functions, etc. Jakub