From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29009 invoked by alias); 15 Jan 2015 16:38:40 -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 28994 invoked by uid 89); 15 Jan 2015 16:38:39 -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,SPF_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; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 16:38:38 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t0FGcbKq004022 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 15 Jan 2015 11:38:37 -0500 Received: from [10.3.113.77] (ovpn-113-77.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.77]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t0FGcaea003241; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 11:38:37 -0500 Message-ID: <54B7ED0C.8000808@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 17:11:00 -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> <54B56C44.8090707@redhat.com> <0EFAB2BDD0F67E4FB6CCC8B9F87D756969D3B5CA@IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <0EFAB2BDD0F67E4FB6CCC8B9F87D756969D3B5CA@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/msg01222.txt.bz2 On 01/15/15 09:36, Zamyatin, Igor wrote: >> >> 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. > > Not sure it's possible to merge DF_REG_DEF_CHAIN walk and DF_REF_CHAIN walk... OK. Just use the same overall structure if we can't pull the test out into a single function that could be called from both places. jeff