On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 11:48:08AM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> On 29.07.22 10:03, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > There were 2 issues visible on this new testcase, one that we didn't have
> > special POINTER_TYPE_P handling in a few spots of expand_omp_simd ...
> > The other issue was that we put n2 expression directly into a
> > comparison in a condition and regimplified that, for the &a[512] case that
> > and with gimplification being destructed that unfortunately meant 
> > modification
> > of original fd->loops[?].n2.  Fixed by unsharing the expression.
> 
> I created a testcase for the non-simd case ā€“ and due to messing up, it failed;
> hence, I filled PR middle-end/106467.  After fixing the testcase, it passes.
> (ā†’ closed PR as invalid).
> 
> However, given that the testcase now exists, I think it makes sense to add it 
> :-)
> 
> Changes compared to the simd testcase: replaced '(parallel for) simd' by 
> 'for',
> removed 'linear', used now 'b' and 'c' instead of storing both ptrs in 'b'.
> 
> Side remark: Before GCC 12, GCC complained about "q = p + n" with
> "error: initializer expression refers to iteration variable ā€˜pā€™".
> 
> OK for mainline?

Ok, thanks.

        Jakub

Reply via email to