http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58482
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Sep 26 07:58:02 2013
New Revision: 202937
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202937root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libgomp/58482
* c-omp.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58482
--- Comment #4 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch ---
I see.
I have several use cases in which the reduction requires the access to two
variables
(minloc for instance: the minimum and its location)
btw tried
omp parallel
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58482
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
There is no problem with having as many reductions as you need, if they are
separate variables; the only case that will prevent vectorization is if you
have a struct/class with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58482
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58482
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It is well known that we don't vectorize this, right now we only handle
accesses to the SIMD lane privatized vars that cover the whole size of those
vars, while in your testcase the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58482
--- Comment #2 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch ---
Thanks Jakub for the clear answer.
The reduction operator should be strictly commutative!
and I now understand the meaning of
omp declare reduction (I hope)
so I
