On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Tom de Vries <tom_devr...@mentor.com> wrote:
> On 09/12/15 19:26, Sebastian Pop wrote:
>>
>> we used to add the access functions in the wrong order, Fortran style,
>> leading to unprofitable interchanges.
>> ---
>> gcc/graphite-sese-to-poly.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/gcc/graphite-sese-to-poly.c b/gcc/graphite-sese-to-poly.c
>> index 887c212..480c552 100644
>> --- a/gcc/graphite-sese-to-poly.c
>> +++ b/gcc/graphite-sese-to-poly.c
>> @@ -912,7 +912,7 @@ pdr_add_memory_accesses (isl_map *acc, dr_info &dri)
>> for (i = 0; i < nb_subscripts; i++)
>> {
>> isl_pw_aff *aff;
>> - tree afn = DR_ACCESS_FN (dr, nb_subscripts - 1 - i);
>> + tree afn = DR_ACCESS_FN (dr, i);
>>
>> aff = extract_affine (scop, afn,
>> isl_space_domain (isl_map_get_space (acc)));
>>
>
> Hi,
>
> I think the fix for PR68953 (
> https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=234851 ) undoes this
> fix.
>
> What problem was this patch intending to address?
>
> In other words, have I re-introduced a problem by fixing PR68953 ?
>
>From the commit message of r234851, it was an interchange profitability
that triggered the change. I think there is still a problem in the way we are
parsing arrays in C vs. Fortran. It is good that now we have the correctness
testcase that you added with the patch.
Thanks,
Sebastian
