On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 1:09 PM Eric Botcazou wrote:
>
> > I'm wondering if testing DR_IS_WRITE (dra) is enough here and whether
> > the logic also applies to RAW and WAR. So should it be either
> > (DR_IS_WRITE (dra) || DR_IS_WRITE (drb)) or DR_IS_WRITE (dra) &&
> > DR_IS_WRITE (drb) instead?
>
>
> I'm wondering if testing DR_IS_WRITE (dra) is enough here and whether
> the logic also applies to RAW and WAR. So should it be either
> (DR_IS_WRITE (dra) || DR_IS_WRITE (drb)) or DR_IS_WRITE (dra) &&
> DR_IS_WRITE (drb) instead?
It's a self-dependence, i.e. dra == drb in the block. Or do you
On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 5:39 PM Eric Botcazou via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> as shown by the attached testcase, there is a loophole in the unroll-and-jam
> pass that can quickly result in wrong code generation. The code reads:
>
> if (!compute_data_dependences_for_loop (outer, true, &loop_
Hi,
as shown by the attached testcase, there is a loophole in the unroll-and-jam
pass that can quickly result in wrong code generation. The code reads:
if (!compute_data_dependences_for_loop (outer, true, &loop_nest,
&datarefs, &dependences))
{
