From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 33210 invoked by alias); 13 Jul 2015 08:36:59 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 33199 invoked by uid 89); 13 Jul 2015 08:36:58 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: fencepost.gnu.org Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (HELO fencepost.gnu.org) (208.118.235.10) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 08:36:57 +0000 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59056) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1ZEZEN-00044j-4d for gcc-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 04:36:55 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZEZEJ-0001uF-Cl for gcc-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 04:36:54 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:38316) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZEZEJ-0001u6-74 for gcc-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 04:36:51 -0400 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 225AA8E90C; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 08:36:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (ovpn-116-44.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.44]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t6D8amIe004261 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 13 Jul 2015 04:36:49 -0400 Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t6D8ak7q011478; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 10:36:46 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.14.9/8.14.9/Submit) id t6D8agXw011477; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 10:36:42 +0200 Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 08:36:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Thomas Schwinge Cc: Tom de Vries , "gcc-patches@gnu.org" Subject: Re: [gomp4, committed] Handle nested loops in kernels regions Message-ID: <20150713083642.GO1788@tucnak.redhat.com> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <55A2618A.7050503@mentor.com> <87io9o1nbn.fsf@kepler.schwinge.homeip.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87io9o1nbn.fsf@kepler.schwinge.homeip.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 209.132.183.28 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-07/txt/msg01004.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 10:19:56AM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > We rely on pass_lim to move the *.omp_data_i loads out of the loop nest. > > For the test-case, pass_lim was managing to move the load out of the > > inner loop, but not the outer loop, because the load was classified as > > 'MOVE_PRESERVE_EXECUTION'. By marking the *.omp_data_i load > > non-trapping, it's now classified as 'MOVE_POSSIBLE', and moved out of > > the loop nest. > > Should this go into trunk already? (Jakub?) I think so. > Do we need to audit the > code for constructs that need similar treatment? That might be helpful. Jakub