On Thu, 4 Jun 2015, Tom de Vries wrote:
> > > {
> > > gsi_next (&gsi);
> > > continue;
> > > diff --git gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.c gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.c
> > > index e417a15..449a615 100644
> > > --- gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.c
> > > +++ gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.c
> > > @@ -85,6 +85,7 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see
> > > #include "ipa-ref.h"
> > > #include "plugin-api.h"
> > > #include "cgraph.h"
> > > +#include "omp-low.h"
> > >
> > > /* This algorithm is based on the SCC algorithm presented by Keith
> > > Cooper and L. Taylor Simpson in "SCC-Based Value numbering"
> > > @@ -3542,7 +3543,8 @@ visit_use (tree use)
> > > {
> > > if (gimple_code (stmt) == GIMPLE_PHI)
> > > changed = visit_phi (stmt);
> > > - else if (gimple_has_volatile_ops (stmt))
> > > + else if (gimple_has_volatile_ops (stmt)
> > > + || gimple_stmt_omp_data_i_init_p (stmt))
> >
> > No.
> >
> > What is the intent of these changes?
> >
>
> These are changes to handle the kernels region conservatively, in order to not
> undo the omp-lowering before getting to the oacc-parloops pass.
Still it feels too much like the MPX mistake (maintainance cost and
compile-time cost). How can any pass "undo" omp-lowering?
Richard.
