Re: Tweak BB analysis for dr_analyze_innermost

2017-06-29 Thread Richard Biener
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Richard Biener writes: >> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Richard Sandiford >> wrote: >>> dr_analyze_innermost had a "struct loop *nest" parameter that acted >>> like a boolean. This was added in r179161, with the idea that a >>> nul

Re: Tweak BB analysis for dr_analyze_innermost

2017-06-29 Thread Richard Sandiford
Richard Biener writes: > On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Richard Sandiford > wrote: >> dr_analyze_innermost had a "struct loop *nest" parameter that acted >> like a boolean. This was added in r179161, with the idea that a >> null nest selected BB-level analysis rather than loop analysis. >> >>

Re: Tweak BB analysis for dr_analyze_innermost

2017-06-29 Thread Richard Biener
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > dr_analyze_innermost had a "struct loop *nest" parameter that acted > like a boolean. This was added in r179161, with the idea that a > null nest selected BB-level analysis rather than loop analysis. > > The handling seemed strange thoug

Re: Tweak BB analysis for dr_analyze_innermost

2017-06-28 Thread Bin.Cheng
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > "Bin.Cheng" writes: >> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Richard Sandiford >> wrote: >>> "Bin.Cheng" writes: Question is what would happen if simple_iv succeeds with non-ZERO step when called with nest==NULL? The patch skips

Re: Tweak BB analysis for dr_analyze_innermost

2017-06-28 Thread Richard Sandiford
"Bin.Cheng" writes: > On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Richard Sandiford > wrote: >> "Bin.Cheng" writes: >>> Question is what would happen if simple_iv succeeds with non-ZERO step >>> when called with nest==NULL? The patch skips simple_iv and forces >>> ZERO step? >> >> Yeah, I mentioned that i

Re: Tweak BB analysis for dr_analyze_innermost

2017-06-28 Thread Bin.Cheng
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > "Bin.Cheng" writes: >> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Richard Sandiford >> wrote: >>> "Bin.Cheng" writes: On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Index: gcc/tree-data-ref.c > ===

Re: Tweak BB analysis for dr_analyze_innermost

2017-06-28 Thread Richard Sandiford
"Bin.Cheng" writes: > On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Richard Sandiford > wrote: >> "Bin.Cheng" writes: >>> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Richard Sandiford >>> wrote: Index: gcc/tree-data-ref.c === --- gcc/tree-d

Re: Tweak BB analysis for dr_analyze_innermost

2017-06-28 Thread Bin.Cheng
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > "Bin.Cheng" writes: >> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Richard Sandiford >> wrote: >>> Index: gcc/tree-data-ref.c >>> === >>> --- gcc/tree-data-ref.c 2017-06-28 14:33:41.2

Re: Tweak BB analysis for dr_analyze_innermost

2017-06-28 Thread Richard Sandiford
"Bin.Cheng" writes: > On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Richard Sandiford > wrote: >> Index: gcc/tree-data-ref.c >> === >> --- gcc/tree-data-ref.c 2017-06-28 14:33:41.294720044 +0100 >> +++ gcc/tree-data-ref.c 2017-06-28 14:35:30.4751

Re: Tweak BB analysis for dr_analyze_innermost

2017-06-28 Thread Bin.Cheng
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Index: gcc/tree-data-ref.c > === > --- gcc/tree-data-ref.c 2017-06-28 14:33:41.294720044 +0100 > +++ gcc/tree-data-ref.c 2017-06-28 14:35:30.475155670 +0100 > @@ -749,15 +749

Tweak BB analysis for dr_analyze_innermost

2017-06-28 Thread Richard Sandiford
dr_analyze_innermost had a "struct loop *nest" parameter that acted like a boolean. This was added in r179161, with the idea that a null nest selected BB-level analysis rather than loop analysis. The handling seemed strange though. If the DR was part of a loop, we still tried to express the base