Disabling unroll-and-jam for unsigned loop is unnecessary. Maybe we
can set loop breaking
condition to "i < (n >= u) n - u : 0", which incur only a little cost
computing the upper bound
before the loop is entered.
On my Linux/x8664 box, this loop nest is unroll-and-jammed by factor
5. With -m32
f
Sun Chan wrote:
> the wrap_around_unsafe flag is supposed to be used to guard that.
> Also, it is supposed to be turn off for O3, as I recall
> sun
>
I don't believe that LNO used that. Also, I would think the compiler
should be more conservative in allowing that "n" might be a small
positive
the wrap_around_unsafe flag is supposed to be used to guard that.
Also, it is supposed to be turn off for O3, as I recall
sun
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 4:57 AM, Dror Maydan wrote:
> We ran into the following bug.
>
> int a[1024];
> void r(unsigned int n)
> {
> unsigned int i,j;
> for (i=0; i for
We ran into the following bug.
int a[1024];
void r(unsigned int n)
{
unsigned int i,j;
for (i=0; ihttp://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev
___
Open64-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/open6
