Hi Jakub and Tom! On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 15:37:26 +0200, Tom de Vries <tom_devr...@mentor.com> wrote: > On 01/10/15 14:49, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 02:46:01PM +0200, Tom de Vries wrote: > >> this patch adds initialization in zero_iter_bb of counters introduced in > >> expand_omp_for_init_counts. > >> > >> This removes the need to set TREE_NO_WARNING on those counters. > > > > Why do you think it is a good idea? > > [...]
> > Furthermore, I'd prefer not to change this area of code before > > gomp-4_1-branch is merged, as it will be a nightmare for the merge > > otherwise. > > Committing to gomp-4_0-branch for now would work for me. Well, the "nightmare" to merge this thus fell onto me... In particular, as part of my gomp-4_0-branch r229255, <http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?message_id=%3C877fmd7lig.fsf%40schwinge.name%3E>, I "butchered" your (Tom's) code (gomp-4_0-branch r228595) to work in context of Jakub's changes -- would you please check that out (current gomp-4_0-branch)? Even though there are no testsuite regressions, given my lack of detailed understanding of this code, I'm not too sure about my changes. Here's, briefly, what I did: in gcc/omp-low.c:expand_omp_for_init_counts extend created_zero_iter_bb handling for fd->ordered; at the end of that function, individually decide (lame...) whether to use zero_iter1_bb or zero_iter2_bb; in gcc/omp-low.c:expand_omp_for_generic remove TREE_NO_WARNING code for the new zero_iter2_bb case, too. Grüße, Thomas
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
