On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Ira Rosen wrote:
> On 30 March 2011 15:09, Ira Rosen wrote:
>>
>> I don't see any :) I'll test your version.
>>
>
> Bootstrapped on powerpc64-suse-linux and tested on x86_64-suse-linux
> the attached patch.
>
> OK to apply?
Ok.
Thanks,
Richard.
> Thanks,
> Ira
>
On 30 March 2011 15:09, Ira Rosen wrote:
>
> I don't see any :) I'll test your version.
>
Bootstrapped on powerpc64-suse-linux and tested on x86_64-suse-linux
the attached patch.
OK to apply?
Thanks,
Ira
ChangeLog:
* tree-if-conv.c (memrefs_read_or_written_unconditionally): Strip all
On 30 March 2011 14:41, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Ira Rosen wrote:
>> On 30 March 2011 12:59, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Ira Rosen wrote:
Hi,
With this patch a data-ref is marked as unconditionally read or
w
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Ira Rosen wrote:
> On 30 March 2011 12:59, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Ira Rosen wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> With this patch a data-ref is marked as unconditionally read or
>>> written also if its adjacent field is read or written unco
On 30 March 2011 12:59, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Ira Rosen wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> With this patch a data-ref is marked as unconditionally read or
>> written also if its adjacent field is read or written unconditionally
>> in the loop.
>> My concern is that this is
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Ira Rosen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> With this patch a data-ref is marked as unconditionally read or
> written also if its adjacent field is read or written unconditionally
> in the loop.
> My concern is that this is not safe enough, even though the fields
> have to be non-
