From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31071 invoked by alias); 13 Jan 2015 19:04:39 -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 31061 invoked by uid 89); 13 Jan 2015 19:04:39 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 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 (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 19:04:38 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t0DJ4bOD015958 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 13 Jan 2015 14:04:37 -0500 Received: from [10.3.113.77] (ovpn-113-77.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.77]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t0DJ4aTU009764; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 14:04:36 -0500 Message-ID: <54B56C44.8090707@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 19:06:00 -0000 From: Jeff Law User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Zamyatin, Igor" , "GCC Patches (gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org)" CC: "ysrumyan@gmail.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix for PR64081 in RTL loop unroller References: <0EFAB2BDD0F67E4FB6CCC8B9F87D756969CF7BFC@IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com> <54AF707D.6080800@redhat.com> <0EFAB2BDD0F67E4FB6CCC8B9F87D756969D345EB@IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <0EFAB2BDD0F67E4FB6CCC8B9F87D756969D345EB@IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-01/txt/msg00920.txt.bz2 On 01/13/15 11:01, Zamyatin, Igor wrote: >> >> Is it really sufficient here to verify that all the defs are on latch predecessors, >> what about the case where there is a predecessor without a def. How do >> you guarantee domination in that case? >> >> ISTM that given the structure for the code you're writing that you'd want to >> verify that in the event of multiple definitions that all of them appear on >> immediate predecessors of the latch *and* that each immediate >> predecessor has a definition. > > Yes, do you think it's better to check exactly immediate predecessors? I'd use the same structure that you have in iv_get_reaching_def. If there was a reasonable way to factor that test into a single function and call it from both places that would be even better. Jeff