Re: Handle data dependence relations with different bases

On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Richard Biener writes: >> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 2:19 PM, Richard Sandiford >> wrote: >>> Richard Sandiford writes:

Re: Handle data dependence relations with different bases

Richard Biener writes: > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 2:19 PM, Richard Sandiford > wrote: >> Richard Sandiford writes: >>> Eric Botcazou writes: [Sorry for missing the previous

Re: Handle data dependence relations with different bases

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 2:19 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Richard Sandiford writes: >> Eric Botcazou writes: >>> [Sorry for missing the previous messages] >>> Thanks. Just been retesting, and I think I

Re: Handle data dependence relations with different bases

Ping Richard Sandiford writes: > Richard Sandiford writes: >> Eric Botcazou writes: >>> [Sorry for missing the previous messages] >>> Thanks. Just been retesting, and I think I must have forgotten to

Re: Handle data dependence relations with different bases

Richard Sandiford writes: > Eric Botcazou writes: >> [Sorry for missing the previous messages] >> >>> Thanks. Just been retesting, and I think I must have forgotten >>> to include Ada last time. It turns out that the patch causes a dg-scan

Re: Handle data dependence relations with different bases

> Ah, yeah. And doing that shows that I'd not handled safelen for > DDR_COULD_BE_INDEPENDENT_P. I've fixed that locally. > > How does this look? Tested on x86_64-linux-gnu both without the > vectoriser changes and with the fixed vectoriser patch. > > Thanks, > Richard > > > 2017-07-07

Re: Handle data dependence relations with different bases

Eric Botcazou writes: > [Sorry for missing the previous messages] > >> Thanks. Just been retesting, and I think I must have forgotten >> to include Ada last time. It turns out that the patch causes a dg-scan >> regression in gnat.dg/vect17.adb, because we now think that

Re: Handle data dependence relations with different bases

[Sorry for missing the previous messages] > Thanks. Just been retesting, and I think I must have forgotten > to include Ada last time. It turns out that the patch causes a dg-scan > regression in gnat.dg/vect17.adb, because we now think that if the > array RECORD_TYPEs *do* alias in: > >

[PING*3, Ada] Re: Handle data dependence relations with different bases

Ping*3 Richard Sandiford writes: > Ping*2 > > Richard Sandiford writes: >> Ping for this Ada patch/question. >> >> Richard Sandiford writes: >>> Richard Biener writes: >>

[PING*2, Ada] Re: Handle data dependence relations with different bases

Ping*2 Richard Sandiford writes: > Ping for this Ada patch/question. > > Richard Sandiford writes: >> Richard Biener writes: > How does this look? Changes since v1: > > - Added

[PING, Ada] Re: Handle data dependence relations with different bases

Ping for this Ada patch/question. Richard Sandiford writes: > Richard Biener writes: How does this look? Changes since v1: - Added access_fn_component_p to check for valid access function components. -

Re: Handle data dependence relations with different bases

Richard Biener writes: >>> How does this look? Changes since v1: >>> >>> - Added access_fn_component_p to check for valid access function components. >>> >>> - Added access_fn_components_comparable_p instead of using >>> types_compatibloe_p directly. >>> >>> - Added

Re: Handle data dependence relations with different bases

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Ping > > Richard Sandiford writes: >> Richard Biener writes: >>> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 7:21 PM, Richard Sandiford >>>

Re: Handle data dependence relations with different bases

Ping Richard Sandiford writes: > Richard Biener writes: >> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 7:21 PM, Richard Sandiford >> wrote: >>> Richard Biener writes: On Thu, May 4, 2017 at

Re: Handle data dependence relations with different bases

Richard Biener writes: > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 7:21 PM, Richard Sandiford > wrote: >> Richard Biener writes: >>> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Richard Biener >>> wrote: On

Re: Handle data dependence relations with different bases

On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 11:27 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > On 4 May 2017 14:12:04 CEST, Richard Biener > wrote: > >>nonoverlapping_component_refs_of_decl_p >>should simply skip ARRAY_REFs - but I also see there: >> >>/* ??? We

Re: Handle data dependence relations with different bases

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 7:21 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Richard Biener writes: >> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Richard Biener >> wrote: >>> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Richard Sandiford >>>

Re: Handle data dependence relations with different bases

On 4 May 2017 14:12:04 CEST, Richard Biener wrote: >nonoverlapping_component_refs_of_decl_p >should simply skip ARRAY_REFs - but I also see there: > >/* ??? We cannot simply use the type of operand #0 of the refs here > as the Fortran compiler smuggles type

Re: Handle data dependence relations with different bases

Richard Biener writes: > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Richard Biener > wrote: >> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Richard Sandiford >> wrote: >>> This patch tries to calculate conservatively-correct

Re: Handle data dependence relations with different bases

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Richard Sandiford > wrote: >> This patch tries to calculate conservatively-correct distance >> vectors for two references whose base addresses are

Re: Handle data dependence relations with different bases

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > This patch tries to calculate conservatively-correct distance > vectors for two references whose base addresses are not the same. > It sets a new flag DDR_COULD_BE_INDEPENDENT_P if the dependence > isn't

Re: Handle data dependence relations with different bases

"Bin.Cheng" writes: > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Richard Sandiford > wrote: >> "Bin.Cheng" writes: >>> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Richard Sandiford >>> wrote: Index:

Re: Handle data dependence relations with different bases

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > "Bin.Cheng" writes: >> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Richard Sandiford >> wrote: >>> Index: gcc/tree-data-ref.h >>>

Re: Handle data dependence relations with different bases

"Bin.Cheng" writes: > On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Richard Sandiford > wrote: >> Index: gcc/tree-data-ref.h >> === >> --- gcc/tree-data-ref.h 2017-05-03 08:48:11.977015306

Re: Handle data dependence relations with different bases

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > This patch tries to calculate conservatively-correct distance > vectors for two references whose base addresses are not the same. > It sets a new flag DDR_COULD_BE_INDEPENDENT_P if the dependence > isn't

Handle data dependence relations with different bases

This patch tries to calculate conservatively-correct distance vectors for two references whose base addresses are not the same. It sets a new flag DDR_COULD_BE_INDEPENDENT_P if the dependence isn't guaranteed to occur. The motivating example is: struct s { int x[8]; }; void f (struct s *a,