https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115140
Thomas Schwinge <tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Host|powerpc64-linux-gnu, |
|powerpc64le-linux-gnu, |
|*-*-solaris2.11 |
Build|powerpc64-linux-gnu, |
|powerpc64le-linux-gnu, |
|*-*-solaris2.11 |
CC| |tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Target|powerpc64-linux-gnu, |
|powerpc64le-linux-gnu, |
|*-*-solaris2.11 |
Last reconfirmed| |2024-05-24
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Schwinge <tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
So the PASS -> FAIL regressions are due to parloops (for '-O2') no longer
parallelizing the simple OpenACC 'kernels' construct at line 185 (and two
more):
int x[N];
#pragma acc kernels
{
for (int i = 0; i < N; ++i)
x[i] = i * i;
}
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Looks like a testsuite artifact?
>
> volatile // TODO PR90488
> static int state = -1;
>
> I've not looked as to why/how we are getting that to influence points-to
> solutions (note as we track also integers volatile on non-pointers can
> matter).
Yeah, it's not obvious to me how that 'state' variable would have such an
effect -- but I've not yet 'diff'ed the dumps.
On the other hand, it's highly likely that there is some relation, as no other
OpenACC 'kernels' test cases did regress.
