Re: [PATCH][2/3][PR65458] Mark omp thread functions as parallelized

2015-03-20 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 01:30:48PM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote: > On 20-03-15 12:57, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >>@@ -5569,6 +5569,7 @@ expand_omp_taskreg (struct omp_region *region) > >>>/* Inform the callgraph about the new function. */ > >>>DECL_STRUCT_FUNCTION (child_fn)->curr_proper

Re: [PATCH][2/3][PR65458] Mark omp thread functions as parallelized

2015-03-20 Thread Tom de Vries
On 20-03-15 12:57, Jakub Jelinek wrote: @@ -5569,6 +5569,7 @@ expand_omp_taskreg (struct omp_region *region) >/* Inform the callgraph about the new function. */ >DECL_STRUCT_FUNCTION (child_fn)->curr_properties = cfun->curr_properties; >cgraph_node::add_new_function (chi

Re: [PATCH][2/3][PR65458] Mark omp thread functions as parallelized

2015-03-20 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:37:11PM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote: > Mark omp thread functions as parallelized > > 2015-03-20 Tom de Vries > > PR tree-optimization/65458 > * cgraph.c (cgraph_node::dump): Handle parallelized_function field. > * cgraph.h (cgraph_node): Add paralleli

Re: [PATCH][2/3][PR65458] Mark omp thread functions as parallelized

2015-03-20 Thread Tom de Vries
On 19-03-15 12:29, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 12:27:04PM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote: Sure, I can update that, I'll retest and repost. Yes, please. Probably the tree-parloops.h include will not be needed either then. Updated to eliminate mark_parallelized_function. Bootstr

Re: [PATCH][2/3][PR65458] Mark omp thread functions as parallelized

2015-03-19 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 12:27:04PM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote: > Sure, I can update that, I'll retest and repost. Yes, please. Probably the tree-parloops.h include will not be needed either then. > Indeed, it's not done here, but it is still done, only later. > > The function we create in parloo

Re: [PATCH][2/3][PR65458] Mark omp thread functions as parallelized

2015-03-19 Thread Tom de Vries
On 19-03-15 12:11, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 12:02:01PM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote: +void +mark_parallelized_function (tree fndecl) +{ + cgraph_node *node = cgraph_node::get (fndecl); + gcc_assert (node != NULL); + node->parallelized_function = 1; } I'm not convinced we

Re: [PATCH][2/3][PR65458] Mark omp thread functions as parallelized

2015-03-19 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 12:02:01PM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote: > +void > +mark_parallelized_function (tree fndecl) > +{ > + cgraph_node *node = cgraph_node::get (fndecl); > + gcc_assert (node != NULL); > + node->parallelized_function = 1; > } I'm not convinced we need this wrapper, I'd just use

Re: [PATCH][2/3][PR65458] Mark omp thread functions as parallelized

2015-03-19 Thread Tom de Vries
On 18-03-15 18:25, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 06:21:51PM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote: this patch fixes PR65458. The patch marks omp thread functions as parallelized, which means the parloops pass no longer attempts to modify that function. Bootstrapped and reg-tested on x86_64.

Re: [PATCH][2/3][PR65458] Mark omp thread functions as parallelized

2015-03-18 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 06:21:51PM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote: > this patch fixes PR65458. > > The patch marks omp thread functions as parallelized, which means the > parloops pass no longer attempts to modify that function. > > Bootstrapped and reg-tested on x86_64. > > OK for stage4 trunk? Thi