On Tue, 24 Nov 2015, Tom de Vries wrote: > On 23/11/15 11:02, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Fri, 20 Nov 2015, Tom de Vries wrote: > > > > > On 20/11/15 14:29, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > I agree it's somewhat of an odd behavior but all passes should > > > > either be placed in a sub-pipeline with an outer > > > > loop_optimizer_init()/finalize () call or call both themselves. > > > > > > Hmm, but adding loop_optimizer_finalize at the end of pass_lim breaks the > > > loop > > > pipeline. > > > > > > We could use the style used in pass_slp_vectorize::execute: > > > ... > > > pass_slp_vectorize::execute (function *fun) > > > { > > > basic_block bb; > > > > > > bool in_loop_pipeline = scev_initialized_p (); > > > if (!in_loop_pipeline) > > > { > > > loop_optimizer_init (LOOPS_NORMAL); > > > scev_initialize (); > > > } > > > > > > ... > > > > > > if (!in_loop_pipeline) > > > { > > > scev_finalize (); > > > loop_optimizer_finalize (); > > > } > > > ... > > > > > > Although that doesn't strike me as particularly clean. > > > > At least it would be a consistent "unclean" style. So yes, the > > above would work for me. > > > > Reposting using the in_loop_pipeline style in pass_lim.
The tree-ssa-loop-im.c changes are ok (I suppose the other changes are in the other patch you posted as well). Thanks, Richard.