First of all, thanx all for all your help, I'm finally seeing the
light at the end of this long tunnel ;-)
one possibility is that the t[i-1] load got moved out of the loop by
PRE; could you check that the load is still present in the loop?
Zdenek
You're right, the load was moved to the out
Hello,
> >is there the data reference for it in the datarefs array?
> >
> >Zdenek
> >
>
> Using this code after the construction of the data dependance :
>
>
> datarefs = VEC_alloc (data_reference_p, heap, 10);
> dependence_relations = VEC_alloc (ddr_p, heap, 10 * 10);
> compu
is there the data reference for it in the datarefs array?
Zdenek
Using this code after the construction of the data dependance :
datarefs = VEC_alloc (data_reference_p, heap, 10);
dependence_relations = VEC_alloc (ddr_p, heap, 10 * 10);
compute_data_dependences_for_loop (lo
Hello,
> >what you do seems basically OK to me. The problem is that you also need
> >to fix the ssa form for the virtual operands of the added calls
> >(i.e., you must call mark_new_vars_to_rename for each of the calls,
> >and update_ssa once at the end of tree_handle_loop).
> >
> >Zdenek
> >
>
Dear all,
Any idea why ? I've looked around in the code to see how they parse
the data dependance tree but I don't see a difference.
Interesting.
So what statements *are* in the list of data dependences if not these.
Ok apparently it's more a problem of optimization levels in O3 the
compiler
Any idea why ? I've looked around in the code to see how they parse
the data dependance tree but I don't see a difference.
Interesting.
So what statements *are* in the list of data dependences if not these.
what you do seems basically OK to me. The problem is that you also need
to fix the ssa form for the virtual operands of the added calls
(i.e., you must call mark_new_vars_to_rename for each of the calls,
and update_ssa once at the end of tree_handle_loop).
Zdenek
Ok, by inserting the mark_new
Hello,
> I have been trying to insert function calls during a new pass in the
> compiler but it does not seem to like my way of doing it. The basic
> idea is to insert a function call before any load in the program
> (later on I'll be selecting a few loads but for now I just want to do
> i
In create_omp_child_function, an identifier for the new function is
created. We then create a call to it using build_function_call_expr in
expand_parallel_call.
Ok so that's what I saw, is this call necessary for what I'd need :
decl = lang_hooks.decls.pushdecl (decl);
Then simplifying the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 08/30/06 16:41:
> Is that a necessary process for the declaration of a function ? I ask
> because I do not want the compiler to compile directly my function but
> rather ask the linker to take care of that (it will be an external
> function).
>
Oh, so you only want to i
Browse through omp-low.c. In particular create_omp_child_function
I understand the beginning of the function with its declaration of the
function but I have a question about these lines :
/* Allocate memory for the function structure. The call to
allocate_struct_function clobbers CFUN
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 08/30/06 14:44:
> Does anyone have any ideas on to how I can modify my function and get it
> to insert the functions correctly ?
>
Browse through omp-low.c. In particular create_omp_child_function and
expand_omp_parallel. The new function needs to be added to the call
Dear all,
I have been trying to insert function calls during a new pass in the
compiler but it does not seem to like my way of doing it. The basic
idea is to insert a function call before any load in the program
(later on I'll be selecting a few loads but for now I just want to do
it for
13 matches
Mail list logo
