* [PATCH] Graphite cannot handle return stmt
@ 2015-06-29 21:33 Aditya Kumar
2015-06-30 0:43 ` Sebastian Pop
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Aditya Kumar @ 2015-06-29 21:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-patches, hiraditya, sebpop
No regressions.
2015-06-29 Aditya Kumar <aditya.k7@samsung.com>
Sebastian Pop <s.pop@samsung.com>
* graphite-scop-detection.c (stmt_simple_for_scop_p): Bail out in case of a return statement.
---
gcc/graphite-scop-detection.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/gcc/graphite-scop-detection.c b/gcc/graphite-scop-detection.c
index e8ddecd..a10702e 100644
--- a/gcc/graphite-scop-detection.c
+++ b/gcc/graphite-scop-detection.c
@@ -365,6 +365,8 @@ stmt_simple_for_scop_p (basic_block scop_entry, loop_p outermost_loop,
switch (gimple_code (stmt))
{
case GIMPLE_RETURN:
+ return false;
+
case GIMPLE_LABEL:
return true;
--
2.1.0.243.g30d45f7
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] Graphite cannot handle return stmt
2015-06-29 21:33 [PATCH] Graphite cannot handle return stmt Aditya Kumar
@ 2015-06-30 0:43 ` Sebastian Pop
2015-06-30 6:43 ` Tobias Grosser
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Sebastian Pop @ 2015-06-30 0:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Aditya Kumar, Tobias Grosser; +Cc: GCC Patches
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Aditya Kumar <hiraditya@msn.com> wrote:
> No regressions.
>
> 2015-06-29 Aditya Kumar <aditya.k7@samsung.com>
> Sebastian Pop <s.pop@samsung.com>
>
> * graphite-scop-detection.c (stmt_simple_for_scop_p): Bail out in case of a return statement.
Looks good to me.
Tobi, do you see a good reason not to cut scops at return stmts?
Thanks,
Sebastian
>
> ---
> gcc/graphite-scop-detection.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/graphite-scop-detection.c b/gcc/graphite-scop-detection.c
> index e8ddecd..a10702e 100644
> --- a/gcc/graphite-scop-detection.c
> +++ b/gcc/graphite-scop-detection.c
> @@ -365,6 +365,8 @@ stmt_simple_for_scop_p (basic_block scop_entry, loop_p outermost_loop,
> switch (gimple_code (stmt))
> {
> case GIMPLE_RETURN:
> + return false;
> +
> case GIMPLE_LABEL:
> return true;
>
> --
> 2.1.0.243.g30d45f7
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] Graphite cannot handle return stmt
2015-06-30 0:43 ` Sebastian Pop
@ 2015-06-30 6:43 ` Tobias Grosser
2015-06-30 8:16 ` Richard Biener
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Tobias Grosser @ 2015-06-30 6:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sebastian Pop, Aditya Kumar; +Cc: GCC Patches
On 06/30/2015 02:12 AM, Sebastian Pop wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Aditya Kumar <hiraditya@msn.com> wrote:
>> No regressions.
>>
>> 2015-06-29 Aditya Kumar <aditya.k7@samsung.com>
>> Sebastian Pop <s.pop@samsung.com>
>>
>> * graphite-scop-detection.c (stmt_simple_for_scop_p): Bail out in case of a return statement.
>
> Looks good to me.
> Tobi, do you see a good reason not to cut scops at return stmts?
Return stmts in a SCoP are definitely invalid. Now, as in my last email,
I wonder why this is not a positive list. There are probably a lot of
gimple codes that are invalid inside scops. By default we should refuse
everything we do _not_ know.
Best,
Tobias
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Graphite cannot handle return stmt
2015-06-30 6:43 ` Tobias Grosser
@ 2015-06-30 8:16 ` Richard Biener
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Richard Biener @ 2015-06-30 8:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tobias Grosser; +Cc: Sebastian Pop, Aditya Kumar, GCC Patches
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 8:12 AM, Tobias Grosser <tobias@grosser.es> wrote:
> On 06/30/2015 02:12 AM, Sebastian Pop wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Aditya Kumar <hiraditya@msn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> No regressions.
>>>
>>> 2015-06-29 Aditya Kumar <aditya.k7@samsung.com>
>>> Sebastian Pop <s.pop@samsung.com>
>>>
>>> * graphite-scop-detection.c (stmt_simple_for_scop_p): Bail out
>>> in case of a return statement.
>>
>>
>> Looks good to me.
>> Tobi, do you see a good reason not to cut scops at return stmts?
>
>
> Return stmts in a SCoP are definitely invalid. Now, as in my last email, I
> wonder why this is not a positive list. There are probably a lot of gimple
> codes that are invalid inside scops. By default we should refuse everything
> we do _not_ know.
The function already does that. It just accepted GIMPLE_RETURN as valid.
IMHO a
default:
gcc_unreachable ();
is the best style as it forces you to list everything explicitely.
The function should
be refactored to do all codes in the switch stmt (GIMPLE_ASMs are handled
in a if, so are GIMPLE_DEBUG for example).
Richard.
> Best,
> Tobias
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <1435611532-31080-1-git-send-email-hiraditya at msn dot com>]
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-07-02 7:52 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2015-06-29 21:33 [PATCH] Graphite cannot handle return stmt Aditya Kumar
2015-06-30 0:43 ` Sebastian Pop
2015-06-30 6:43 ` Tobias Grosser
2015-06-30 8:16 ` Richard Biener
[not found] <1435611532-31080-1-git-send-email-hiraditya at msn dot com>
2015-06-30 20:55 ` Aditya Kumar
2015-07-02 7:52 ` Tobias Grosser
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).