Issue with a flag that I defined getting set to zero

Issue with a flag that I defined getting set to zero

[Gary Oblock]

An optimization flag that I recently added is being
set to zero in push_cfun (which after a couple of
levels of calls cl_optimization_restore to this.)

The flag defined like this:

finterleaving-index-32-bits
Common Var(flag_interleaving_index_32_bits) Init(0) Optimization
Structure reorganization optimization, instance interleaving.

Note, I'm working around this but l'd really like
to not have to do so therefore I'm wondering if somebody
could explain what's happening and what I'd need
to do instead?

Thanks,

Gary


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and contains information that is confidential and proprietary to Ampere Computing or its subsidiaries. It is to be used solely for the purpose of furthering the parties' business relationship. Any unauthorized review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.

Re: Issue with a flag that I defined getting set to zero

[Martin Liška]

On 1/7/22 09:10, Gary Oblock via Gcc wrote:
> An optimization flag that I recently added is being
> set to zero in push_cfun (which after a couple of
> levels of calls cl_optimization_restore to this.)

Question is: what's the value of the flag in your IPA pass
if you set -finterleaving-index-32-bits? It should not really be zero.

> 
> The flag defined like this:
> 
> finterleaving-index-32-bits
> Common Var(flag_interleaving_index_32_bits) Init(0) Optimization
> Structure reorganization optimization, instance interleaving.
> 
> Note, I'm working around this but l'd really like
> to not have to do so therefore I'm wondering if somebody
> could explain what's happening and what I'd need
> to do instead?

You defined the flag well.

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Gary
> 
> 
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and contains information that is confidential and proprietary to Ampere Computing or its subsidiaries. It is to be used solely for the purpose of furthering the parties' business relationship. Any unauthorized review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.

Can you please remove this ugly notice that it's completely misleading? If not, I would then
recommend creating a private email.

Martin

Re: Issue with a flag that I defined getting set to zero

[Gary Oblock]

Martin,

Regarding the corporate legal gibberish. It's automatic
and not under my control also we're not supposed to
use private emails for work...

Gary
________________________________
From: Martin Liška <mliska@suse.cz>
Sent: Friday, January 7, 2022 12:20 AM
To: Gary Oblock <gary@amperecomputing.com>; gcc@gcc.gnu.org <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Issue with a flag that I defined getting set to zero

[EXTERNAL EMAIL NOTICE: This email originated from an external sender. Please be mindful of safe email handling and proprietary information protection practices.]


On 1/7/22 09:10, Gary Oblock via Gcc wrote:
> An optimization flag that I recently added is being
> set to zero in push_cfun (which after a couple of
> levels of calls cl_optimization_restore to this.)

Question is: what's the value of the flag in your IPA pass
if you set -finterleaving-index-32-bits? It should not really be zero.

>
> The flag defined like this:
>
> finterleaving-index-32-bits
> Common Var(flag_interleaving_index_32_bits) Init(0) Optimization
> Structure reorganization optimization, instance interleaving.
>
> Note, I'm working around this but l'd really like
> to not have to do so therefore I'm wondering if somebody
> could explain what's happening and what I'd need
> to do instead?

You defined the flag well.

>
> Thanks,
>
> Gary
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and contains information that is confidential and proprietary to Ampere Computing or its subsidiaries. It is to be used solely for the purpose of furthering the parties' business relationship. Any unauthorized review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.

Can you please remove this ugly notice that it's completely misleading? If not, I would then
recommend creating a private email.

Martin

Re: Issue with a flag that I defined getting set to zero

[Martin Liška]

On 1/7/22 09:30, Gary Oblock wrote:
> Regarding the corporate legal gibberish. It's automatic
> and not under my control also we're not supposed to
> use private emails for work...

I respect that. But please respect me that I won't reply to your
emails any longer. I don't want to follow the conditions in the NOTICE!

Cheers,
Martin

Re: Issue with a flag that I defined getting set to zero

[Gabriel Ravier]

On 1/7/22 09:38, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 1/7/22 09:30, Gary Oblock wrote:
>> Regarding the corporate legal gibberish. It's automatic
>> and not under my control also we're not supposed to
>> use private emails for work...
>
> I respect that. But please respect me that I won't reply to your
> emails any longer. I don't want to follow the conditions in the NOTICE!
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
As far as I know the notice has no legal significance at all (which Gary 
should probably point out to his management. Really, pretty much the 
only thing the disclaimer will do is that _some_ people _might_ read it 
and _some_ of those people _might_ adhere to the terms given there, 
which is basically meaningless compared to the general annoyance 
resulting from disclaimers being at the end of e-mails everywhere). You 
can't just magically establish an agreement that results in a duty of 
nondisclosure like this without agreement, and just receiving an email 
obviously isn't that.

(although ironically, I guess I should add a disclaimer of my own: I 
ain't a lawyer and this isn't legal advice)

Re: Issue with a flag that I defined getting set to zero

[Gary Oblock]

Gabriel,

Yes, indeed, thank you.

Note, it is a reminder to those that are receiving proprietary
and that is considered as a legal obligation on the part of the
company transmitting it because they must make an effort to
protect their proprietary information.

I'm not a lawyer either but I feel like I'm being forced to
act like one. 😉

Now, can anybody answer my question?

Sincerely

Gary

________________________________
From: Gabriel Ravier <gabravier@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, January 7, 2022 12:56 AM
To: Martin Liška <mliska@suse.cz>; Gary Oblock <gary@amperecomputing.com>; gcc@gcc.gnu.org <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Issue with a flag that I defined getting set to zero

[EXTERNAL EMAIL NOTICE: This email originated from an external sender. Please be mindful of safe email handling and proprietary information protection practices.]


On 1/7/22 09:38, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 1/7/22 09:30, Gary Oblock wrote:
>> Regarding the corporate legal gibberish. It's automatic
>> and not under my control also we're not supposed to
>> use private emails for work...
>
> I respect that. But please respect me that I won't reply to your
> emails any longer. I don't want to follow the conditions in the NOTICE!
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
As far as I know the notice has no legal significance at all (which Gary
should probably point out to his management. Really, pretty much the
only thing the disclaimer will do is that _some_ people _might_ read it
and _some_ of those people _might_ adhere to the terms given there,
which is basically meaningless compared to the general annoyance
resulting from disclaimers being at the end of e-mails everywhere). You
can't just magically establish an agreement that results in a duty of
nondisclosure like this without agreement, and just receiving an email
obviously isn't that.

(although ironically, I guess I should add a disclaimer of my own: I
ain't a lawyer and this isn't legal advice)

Re: Issue with a flag that I defined getting set to zero

[Richard Biener]

On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 9:12 AM Gary Oblock via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> An optimization flag that I recently added is being
> set to zero in push_cfun (which after a couple of
> levels of calls cl_optimization_restore to this.)
>
> The flag defined like this:
>
> finterleaving-index-32-bits
> Common Var(flag_interleaving_index_32_bits) Init(0) Optimization
> Structure reorganization optimization, instance interleaving.
>
> Note, I'm working around this but l'd really like
> to not have to do so therefore I'm wondering if somebody
> could explain what's happening and what I'd need
> to do instead?

Did you rebuild all of GCC after adding the option?  Note that when you
look at the option from LTO and from within an IPA pass then you
have to use opt_for_fn (..) since the "global" option at link time will
be not set (unless you specify it again at link time), it will be only
present on the functions of the compile TU it was set globally.

>
> Thanks,
>
> Gary
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and contains information that is confidential and proprietary to Ampere Computing or its subsidiaries. It is to be used solely for the purpose of furthering the parties' business relationship. Any unauthorized review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.

Re: Issue with a flag that I defined getting set to zero

[Gary Oblock]

Richard,

That's nice to know but I added the option itself months ago.
Also, it's on the lto1 command line, cc1 command line and
shows up in the COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS so I assume
it universally applied.

Thanks,

Gary
________________________________
From: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 12:36 AM
To: Gary Oblock <gary@amperecomputing.com>
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Issue with a flag that I defined getting set to zero

[EXTERNAL EMAIL NOTICE: This email originated from an external sender. Please be mindful of safe email handling and proprietary information protection practices.]


On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 9:12 AM Gary Oblock via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> An optimization flag that I recently added is being
> set to zero in push_cfun (which after a couple of
> levels of calls cl_optimization_restore to this.)
>
> The flag defined like this:
>
> finterleaving-index-32-bits
> Common Var(flag_interleaving_index_32_bits) Init(0) Optimization
> Structure reorganization optimization, instance interleaving.
>
> Note, I'm working around this but l'd really like
> to not have to do so therefore I'm wondering if somebody
> could explain what's happening and what I'd need
> to do instead?

Did you rebuild all of GCC after adding the option?  Note that when you
look at the option from LTO and from within an IPA pass then you
have to use opt_for_fn (..) since the "global" option at link time will
be not set (unless you specify it again at link time), it will be only
present on the functions of the compile TU it was set globally.

>
> Thanks,
>
> Gary
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and contains information that is confidential and proprietary to Ampere Computing or its subsidiaries. It is to be used solely for the purpose of furthering the parties' business relationship. Any unauthorized review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.