https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114635
--- Comment #19 from Richard Sandiford ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #14)
> Usually targets do have a limit on the actual length but I see
> constant_upper_bound_with_limit doesn't query such. But it would
> be a more
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114635
--- Comment #18 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Also, can we set INT_MAX when there is no explicit safelen specified in OMP.
Something like:
--- a/gcc/omp-low.cc
+++ b/gcc/omp-low.cc
@@ -6975,14 +6975,11 @@ lower_rec_input_clauses (tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114635
--- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 15 Apr 2024, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114635
>
> --- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114635
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #14)
> I think
>
> if (safelen)
> {
> poly_uint64 val;
> safelen = OMP_CLAUSE_SAFELEN_EXPR (safelen);
> if (!poly_int_tree_p (safelen, ))
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114635
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 15 Apr 2024, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114635
>
> --- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to kugan from comment #12)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114635
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
I think
if (safelen)
{
poly_uint64 val;
safelen = OMP_CLAUSE_SAFELEN_EXPR (safelen);
if (!poly_int_tree_p (safelen, ))
safelen_int = 0;
else
safelen_int =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114635
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to kugan from comment #12)
> > 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
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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114635
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114635
--- Comment #10 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 57946
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57946=edit
patch
patch to make loop->safelen a poly_int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114635
--- Comment #9 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114635
kugan at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kugan at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114635
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> Am 08.04.2024 um 16:55 schrieb tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
> :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114635
>
> --- Comment #6 from Tamar Christina ---
> (In reply to Jakub
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114635
--- Comment #6 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Now, with SVE/RISCV vectors the actual vectorization factor is a poly_int
> rather than constant. One possibility would be to use VLA arrays in those
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114635
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> As for the dependence analysis itself - the issue is that the D.5606[_33]
> style accesses have no access functions - I'm not sure how they evolve,
> but I see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114635
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114635
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114635
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openmp
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114635
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Note even -fopenmp-simd would likely fail if you remove the #if _OPENMP check.
-fopenmp-simd doesn't define _OPENMP, only -fopenmp does.
It seems to work on x86_64 but we get a "scalar" epilog somehow.
19 matches
Mail list logo
