https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115101
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirmed| |2024-05-15
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Component|middle-end |tree-optimization
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Confirmed.
[scheduler] original ast:
for (int c0 = 0; c0 <= 3; c0 += 1)
for (int c1 = 0; c1 <= 3; c1 += 1) {
for (int c2 = 0; c2 <= 3; c2 += 1) {
for (int c3 = 0; c3 <= 1; c3 += 1)
S_3(c0, c1, c2, c3);
S_21(c0, c1, c2);
}
for (int c2 = 0; c2 <= 1; c2 += 1)
for (int c5 = 0; c5 <= 3; c5 += 1)
S_6(c0, c1, c5, c2);
for (int c2 = 0; c2 <= 3; c2 += 1)
S_23(c0, c1, c2);
}
shows something goes wrong translating the sibling loop or the original AST
shown is in fact a transformed one already. The transformed shown shows
an extra interchange:
[scheduler] AST generated by isl:
for (int c0 = 0; c0 <= 3; c0 += 1)
for (int c1 = 0; c1 <= 3; c1 += 1) {
for (int c2 = 0; c2 <= 3; c2 += 1) {
for (int c3 = 0; c3 <= 1; c3 += 1)
S_3(c0, c1, c2, c3);
S_21(c0, c1, c2);
}
for (int c4 = 0; c4 <= 3; c4 += 1)
for (int c5 = 0; c5 <= 1; c5 += 1)
S_6(c0, c1, c4, c5);
for (int c2 = 0; c2 <= 3; c2 += 1)
S_23(c0, c1, c2);
}
but the distribution of the sibling for (i...) loop looks confused already.
