From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 119481 invoked by alias); 23 Mar 2017 11:19:52 -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 119463 invoked by uid 89); 23 Mar 2017 11:19:51 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 11:19:50 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D7B5804EF; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 11:19:51 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 9D7B5804EF Authentication-Results: ext-mx03.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx03.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=jakub@redhat.com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com 9D7B5804EF Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (ovpn-116-72.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.72]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 327D260BEF; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 11:19:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id v2NBJlT9028987; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 12:19:48 +0100 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id v2NBJkM9028986; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 12:19:46 +0100 Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 11:19:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Alexander Monakov Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] omp-offload: implement SIMT privatization, part 2 Message-ID: <20170323111946.GQ11094@tucnak> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <1490197595-31938-1-git-send-email-amonakov@ispras.ru> <1490197595-31938-4-git-send-email-amonakov@ispras.ru> <20170323103738.GN11094@tucnak> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.1 (2016-10-04) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-03/txt/msg01216.txt.bz2 On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 01:53:37PM +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote: > On Thu, 23 Mar 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > + if (vf != 1) > > > + continue; > > > + unlink_stmt_vdef (stmt); > > > > This is weird. AFAIK unlink_stmt_vdef just replaces the uses of the vdef > > of that stmt with the vuse, but it still keeps the vdef (and vuse) around > > on the stmt, typically it is used when you are removing that stmt, but > > that is not the case here. So why are you doing it and not say removing the > > vdef? > > Maybe I misunderstand your question, but actually the statement is removed > further below, when we break out of the switch: Ah, ok, missed that. Thus, the patch is ok with those 2 nits fixed. Jakub