From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20514 invoked by alias); 14 Dec 2012 17:02:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 20500 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Dec 2012 17:02:26 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mga03.intel.com (HELO mga03.intel.com) (143.182.124.21) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 17:02:15 +0000 Received: from azsmga002.ch.intel.com ([10.2.17.35]) by azsmga101.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 14 Dec 2012 09:01:49 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 Received: from fmsmsx105.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.19.9.36]) by AZSMGA002.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 14 Dec 2012 09:01:49 -0800 Received: from fmsmsx102.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.2.188]) by FMSMSX105.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.5.108]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:01:48 -0800 From: "Iyer, Balaji V" To: Jakub Jelinek CC: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: RE: [PATCH][Cilkplus] Fix pragma simd info being lost Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 17:02:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: <20121214165843.GZ2315@tucnak.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20121214165843.GZ2315@tucnak.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 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/msg00988.txt.bz2 Hello Jakub, Please see my responses below. Thanks, Balaji V. Iyer. > -----Original Message----- > From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:jakub@redhat.com] > Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 11:59 AM > To: Iyer, Balaji V > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH][Cilkplus] Fix pragma simd info being lost >=20 > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 04:59:02AM +0000, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: > > --- tree-vect-loop.c (revision 194483) > > +++ tree-vect-loop.c (working copy) > > @@ -234,8 +234,8 @@ > > if (flag_enable_cilk && pragma_simd_assert_requested_p > > (loop->pragma_simd_index)) > > { > > - error ("Loop not vectorized. " > > - "Exiting as requested by Pragma SIMD"); > > + fatal_error ("Loop not vectorized. " > > + "Exiting as requested by Pragma SIMD"); > > } > > return false; > > } >=20 > 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 req= uire > 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 lo= op is not vectorized. This is why I used fatal_error. The default case is n= oassert. >=20 > Jakub