From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 130699 invoked by alias); 3 Jun 2015 11:22:44 -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 130680 invoked by uid 89); 3 Jun 2015 11:22:43 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx2.suse.de Received: from cantor2.suse.de (HELO mx2.suse.de) (195.135.220.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (CAMELLIA256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 03 Jun 2015 11:22:43 +0000 Received: from relay1.suse.de (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B026ADB8; Wed, 3 Jun 2015 11:22:40 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 11:26:00 -0000 From: Richard Biener To: Tom de Vries cc: Thomas Schwinge , GCC Patches , Jakub Jelinek Subject: Re: [PATCH, 4/8] Add pass_tree_loop_{init,done} to pass_oacc_kernels In-Reply-To: <556DCE1A.2080203@mentor.com> Message-ID: References: <546743BC.5070804@mentor.com> <54678BAB.5000000@mentor.com> <54746818.8020408@mentor.com> <87618p1cov.fsf@kepler.schwinge.homeip.net> <556DB46A.7070506@mentor.com> <556DCE1A.2080203@mentor.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (LSU 23 2013-08-11) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2015-06/txt/msg00302.txt.bz2 On Tue, 2 Jun 2015, Tom de Vries wrote: > On 02-06-15 15:58, Richard Biener wrote: > > Btw, I wonder why you don't organize the oacc-kernel passes in > > a new simple-IPA group after pass_local_optimization_passes. > > I've placed the pass group as early as possible (meaning after ealias) and put > passes in front only when that served a purpose for parallelization > (pass_fre). The idea there was to minimize the amount of passes that have to > be modified to deal (conservatively) with a kernels region. I see. > So AFAICT, there's nothing against placing the pass group after > pass_local_optimization_passes, other that that it's more work in more passes > to keep the region intact. > > What would be the benefit of doing so? Get all the local optimizations done, including pure-const discovery. Richard. -- Richard Biener SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Dilip Upmanyu, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg)