Re: [patch] Add support for #pragma GCC unroll v2

2017-11-27 Thread Eric Botcazou
> The middle-end, testsuite and boilerplate changes in the FEs are ok. Thanks. But it turns out that the Ada compiler needs a way to convey a pragma unroll without explicit unrolling factor, because otherwise the RTL unroller will happily try to unroll some loops USHRT_MAX times... Tested on x

Re: [patch] Add support for #pragma GCC unroll v2

2017-11-23 Thread Richard Biener
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote: > Hi, > > this is a revised version of: > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-11/msg01452.html > > with the following changes: > 1. integration of Bernhard's patch for the Fortran front-end, > 2. Sandra's fix for the documentation, >

Re: [patch] Add support for #pragma GCC unroll

2017-11-22 Thread Sandra Loosemore
On 11/21/2017 03:18 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote: First of all, the structuring in this section is screwed up. The discussion and examples for the previous item (#pragma ivdep) should be moved inside the @table so that you don't have to introduce another @table here, just insert another entry into th

[patch] Add support for #pragma GCC unroll v2

2017-11-22 Thread Eric Botcazou
Hi, this is a revised version of: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-11/msg01452.html with the following changes: 1. integration of Bernhard's patch for the Fortran front-end, 2. Sandra's fix for the documentation, 3. minor tweaks to the C and C++ front-end, 4. change at the GIMPLE lev

Re: [patch] Add support for #pragma GCC unroll

2017-11-21 Thread Eric Botcazou
> The documentation for the directive is missing indeed. We can fix this > during stage3. Someone who speaks Fortran will have to write it down... > Currently the directive works on the whole function (see > gfc_cfun_has_unroll()) and instructs the loop-optimizers to run on > that function. gfc_

Re: [patch] Add support for #pragma GCC unroll

2017-11-21 Thread Eric Botcazou
> First of all, the structuring in this section is screwed up. The > discussion and examples for the previous item (#pragma ivdep) should be > moved inside the @table so that you don't have to introduce another > @table here, just insert another entry into the existing one. That's also the case f

Re: [patch] Add support for #pragma GCC unroll

2017-11-20 Thread Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
On 20 November 2017 at 15:45, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 12:57:47PM +0100, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: >> On 20 November 2017 at 12:26, Eric Botcazou wrote: >> >> If anybody finds the time to push the corresponding Fortran changes then >> >> I'd >> >> be grateful. I won't h

Re: [patch] Add support for #pragma GCC unroll

2017-11-20 Thread Sandra Loosemore
On 11/17/2017 03:23 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote: Index: doc/extend.texi === --- doc/extend.texi (revision 254797) +++ doc/extend.texi (working copy) @@ -22376,6 +22376,18 @@ void ignore_vec_dep (int *a, int k, int @} @end smal

Re: [patch] Add support for #pragma GCC unroll

2017-11-20 Thread Steve Kargl
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 12:57:47PM +0100, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > On 20 November 2017 at 12:26, Eric Botcazou wrote: > >> If anybody finds the time to push the corresponding Fortran changes then > >> I'd > >> be grateful. I won't have time for this until end of stage 1... > >> > >> http

Re: [patch] Add support for #pragma GCC unroll

2017-11-20 Thread Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
On 20 November 2017 at 12:26, Eric Botcazou wrote: >> If anybody finds the time to push the corresponding Fortran changes then I'd >> be grateful. I won't have time for this until end of stage 1... >> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-02/msg00014.html > > OK, I'm going to merge it in the main

Re: [patch] Add support for #pragma GCC unroll

2017-11-20 Thread Eric Botcazou
> Looking at the middle-end changes. The change to ANNOTATE_EXPR to three > operands is approved also for existing frontends (just in case you > don't get review). > Found the missing possibility of an argument limiting myself... I see. ;-) > Your changes to the RTL unrolling pass as far as I se

Re: [patch] Add support for #pragma GCC unroll

2017-11-20 Thread Eric Botcazou
> If anybody finds the time to push the corresponding Fortran changes then I'd > be grateful. I won't have time for this until end of stage 1... > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-02/msg00014.html OK, I'm going to merge it in the main patch. -- Eric Botcazou

Re: [patch] Add support for #pragma GCC unroll

2017-11-17 Thread Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
On 17 November 2017 14:31:45 CET, Richard Biener wrote: >On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Eric Botcazou >wrote: >> Hi, >> >> this is a cleaned up and updated revision of Mike's latest posted >patch >> implementing #pragma GCC unroll in the C and C++ compilers. To be >honest, >> we're not so mu

Re: [patch] Add support for #pragma GCC unroll

2017-11-17 Thread Richard Biener
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote: > Hi, > > this is a cleaned up and updated revision of Mike's latest posted patch > implementing #pragma GCC unroll in the C and C++ compilers. To be honest, > we're not so much interested in the front-end bits as in the middle-end bits, > be

[patch] Add support for #pragma GCC unroll

2017-11-17 Thread Eric Botcazou
Hi, this is a cleaned up and updated revision of Mike's latest posted patch implementing #pragma GCC unroll in the C and C++ compilers. To be honest, we're not so much interested in the front-end bits as in the middle-end bits, because the latter would at last make the Ada version of the pragm