On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 10:19:56AM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > We rely on pass_lim to move the *.omp_data_i loads out of the loop nest. > > For the test-case, pass_lim was managing to move the load out of the > > inner loop, but not the outer loop, because the load was classified as > > 'MOVE_PRESERVE_EXECUTION'. By marking the *.omp_data_i load > > non-trapping, it's now classified as 'MOVE_POSSIBLE', and moved out of > > the loop nest. > > Should this go into trunk already? (Jakub?)
I think so. > Do we need to audit the > code for constructs that need similar treatment? That might be helpful. Jakub