https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114635
--- Comment #12 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11) > (In reply to kugan from comment #9) > > Looking at the options, looks to me that making loop->safelen a poly_in is > > the way to go. (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4) > > > The OpenMP safelen clause argument is a scalar integer, so using poly_int > > > for something that must be an int doesn't make sense. > > > Though, the above testcase actually doesn't use safelen clause, so safelen > > > is there effectively infinity. > > Thanks. I was looking at this to see if there is a way to handle this > > differently. Looks to me that making loop->safelen a poly_int is the way to > > handle at least the case when omp safelen clause is not provided. > > Why? > Then it just is INT_MAX value, which is a magic value that says that it is > infinity. > No need to say it is a poly_int infinity. For this test case, omp_max_vf gets [16, 16] from the backend. This then becomes 16. If we keep it as poly_int, it would pass maybe_lt (max_vf, min_vf)) after applying safelen?
