On 03/07/2014 19:24, Roman Gareev wrote:
However, this form doesn't have loop guards which are generated by
>>graphite_create_new_loop_guard in gcc/graphite-isl-ast-to-gimple.c and
>>by graphite_create_new_loop_guard in graphite-clast-to-gimple.c.
>
>
>Maybe the guards are directly constant fold
>> However, this form doesn't have loop guards which are generated by
>> graphite_create_new_loop_guard in gcc/graphite-isl-ast-to-gimple.c and
>> by graphite_create_new_loop_guard in graphite-clast-to-gimple.c.
>
>
> Maybe the guards are directly constant folded? Can you try with:
I've tried this
On 01/07/2014 14:53, Roman Gareev wrote:
Hi Tobias,
could you please advise me how to verify the results of gimple code
generation?
More comments inline, but here something on a very high level.
I personally like testing already on the GIMPLE level and could see us
matching for certain expres
Hi Tobias,
could you please advise me how to verify the results of gimple code
generation? I've written the first draft of the generation of loops
with empty bodies and tried to verify gimple code using the
representation, which is dumped at the end of the generation of the
dump_file. If we consid
On 27/06/2014 07:31, Roman Gareev wrote:
Are you saying we should better not do unit testing at the moment? (This is
perfectly fine with me, I am just verifying what you said)
Yes, I think we should better not to do it. It seems that unit-testing
isn't supported in gcc.
If we don't have a con
> Are you saying we should better not do unit testing at the moment? (This is
> perfectly fine with me, I am just verifying what you said)
Yes, I think we should better not to do it. It seems that unit-testing
isn't supported in gcc.
> If we don't have a convenient way to do unit-testing, we need
> I assume so. However, we always want signed types, so the second
> argument should be zero, no?
Yes, you are right.
> How did you verify that the semantics of the GCC and isl expressions are
> identical?
I haven't tested it on examples yet. I've only matched their semantics
from the isl manual
On 23/06/2014 08:34, Roman Gareev wrote:
Hi Tobias,
I'm currently working on generation of GCC expression trees from isl
ast expressions . Could you please answer a few questions about it?
1. How is it better to generate tree from isl_ast_expr_int? In the
temporary variant I call isl_ast_expr_g
Hi Tobias,
I'm currently working on generation of GCC expression trees from isl
ast expressions . Could you please answer a few questions about it?
1. How is it better to generate tree from isl_ast_expr_int? In the
temporary variant I call isl_ast_expr_get_int to get isl_int from
isl_ast_expr. Af
