| Message ID | 87bnxhlpyb.fsf@kepler.schwinge.homeip.net |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
Hi! Ping. On Fri, 07 Mar 2014 21:21:48 +0100, I wrote: > On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 14:44:45 -0700, Aldy Hernandez <aldyh@redhat.com> wrote: > > I fixed a few nits Jason pointed out off-line, and both him and Jakub > > have approved the patch for trunk. > > > > In running the final round of tests I noticed a few problems with my > > choice of bit numbers for the GF_OMP_* masks. I fixed them, and re-ran > > tests on x86-64 Linux. > > > > Attached is the final version of the patch I have committed to trunk. > > > Date: Mon Oct 14 18:32:13 2013 -0500 > > > --- a/gcc/omp-low.c > > +++ b/gcc/omp-low.c > > > @@ -3587,7 +3619,7 @@ lower_rec_input_clauses (tree clauses, gimple_seq *ilist, gimple_seq *dlist, > > /* Don't add any barrier for #pragma omp simd or > > #pragma omp distribute. */ > > if (gimple_code (ctx->stmt) != GIMPLE_OMP_FOR > > - || gimple_omp_for_kind (ctx->stmt) == GF_OMP_FOR_KIND_FOR) > > + || gimple_omp_for_kind (ctx->stmt) & GF_OMP_FOR_KIND_FOR) > > gimple_seq_add_stmt (ilist, build_omp_barrier (NULL_TREE)); > > } > > Maybe it's just too late on a Friday evening, but I don't understand this > change, part of r204863. GF_OMP_FOR_KIND_FOR has the value zero; > shouldn't this comparison have remained unchanged? Is the following > (untested) patch OK for trunk? Does this need a test case? > > commit f3c7834ecbedc50e04223d24b1b671fc8a62c169 > Author: Thomas Schwinge <thomas@codesourcery.com> > Date: Fri Mar 7 21:11:43 2014 +0100 > > Restore check for OpenMP for construct. > > gcc/ > * omp-low.c (lower_rec_input_clauses) <build_omp_barrier>: Restore > check for GF_OMP_FOR_KIND_FOR. > > diff --git gcc/omp-low.c gcc/omp-low.c > index 4dc3956..713a4ae 100644 > --- gcc/omp-low.c > +++ gcc/omp-low.c > @@ -3915,7 +3915,7 @@ lower_rec_input_clauses (tree clauses, gimple_seq *ilist, gimple_seq *dlist, > /* Don't add any barrier for #pragma omp simd or > #pragma omp distribute. */ > if (gimple_code (ctx->stmt) != GIMPLE_OMP_FOR > - || gimple_omp_for_kind (ctx->stmt) & GF_OMP_FOR_KIND_FOR) > + || gimple_omp_for_kind (ctx->stmt) == GF_OMP_FOR_KIND_FOR) > gimple_seq_add_stmt (ilist, build_omp_barrier (NULL_TREE)); > } > Grüße, Thomas
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 09:21:48PM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Maybe it's just too late on a Friday evening, but I don't understand this > change, part of r204863. GF_OMP_FOR_KIND_FOR has the value zero; > shouldn't this comparison have remained unchanged? Is the following > (untested) patch OK for trunk? Does this need a test case? > > commit f3c7834ecbedc50e04223d24b1b671fc8a62c169 > Author: Thomas Schwinge <thomas@codesourcery.com> > Date: Fri Mar 7 21:11:43 2014 +0100 > > Restore check for OpenMP for construct. > > gcc/ > * omp-low.c (lower_rec_input_clauses) <build_omp_barrier>: Restore > check for GF_OMP_FOR_KIND_FOR. Ok for trunk, sorry for the delay. > diff --git gcc/omp-low.c gcc/omp-low.c > index 4dc3956..713a4ae 100644 > --- gcc/omp-low.c > +++ gcc/omp-low.c > @@ -3915,7 +3915,7 @@ lower_rec_input_clauses (tree clauses, gimple_seq *ilist, gimple_seq *dlist, > /* Don't add any barrier for #pragma omp simd or > #pragma omp distribute. */ > if (gimple_code (ctx->stmt) != GIMPLE_OMP_FOR > - || gimple_omp_for_kind (ctx->stmt) & GF_OMP_FOR_KIND_FOR) > + || gimple_omp_for_kind (ctx->stmt) == GF_OMP_FOR_KIND_FOR) > gimple_seq_add_stmt (ilist, build_omp_barrier (NULL_TREE)); > } > Jakub
diff --git gcc/omp-low.c gcc/omp-low.c index 4dc3956..713a4ae 100644 --- gcc/omp-low.c +++ gcc/omp-low.c @@ -3915,7 +3915,7 @@ lower_rec_input_clauses (tree clauses, gimple_seq *ilist, gimple_seq *dlist, /* Don't add any barrier for #pragma omp simd or #pragma omp distribute. */ if (gimple_code (ctx->stmt) != GIMPLE_OMP_FOR - || gimple_omp_for_kind (ctx->stmt) & GF_OMP_FOR_KIND_FOR) + || gimple_omp_for_kind (ctx->stmt) == GF_OMP_FOR_KIND_FOR) gimple_seq_add_stmt (ilist, build_omp_barrier (NULL_TREE)); }