Hey,
On Tue, 28 Jan 2025, Richard Biener wrote:
> > I think as long as that is the case your proposed changes makes sense.
> > But perhaps it's worth a comment to that effect, i.e. that because
> > dependence analysis is wonky (sometime using zero as unknown) we do these
> > "strange" tests.
On Mon, 27 Jan 2025, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, 23 Jan 2025, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > When we get a zero distance vector we still have to check for the
> > situation of a common inner loop with zero distance. But we can
> > still allow a zero distance for the loop we distribute
Hello,
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025, Richard Biener wrote:
> When we get a zero distance vector we still have to check for the
> situation of a common inner loop with zero distance. But we can
> still allow a zero distance for the loop we distribute
> (gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ldist-33.c is such a case). This is
When we get a zero distance vector we still have to check for the
situation of a common inner loop with zero distance. But we can
still allow a zero distance for the loop we distribute
(gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ldist-33.c is such a case). This is because
zero distances in non-outermost loops are a misrepr
