On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 11:07:41PM +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> In preparation to handle new SIMT privatization in
> lower_rec_simd_input_clauses
> this patch factors out variables common to this and lower_rec_input_clauses to
> a new structure. No functional change intended.
>
> * omp-low.c (omplow_simd_context): New struct. Use it...
> (lower_rec_simd_input_clauses): ...here and...
> (lower_rec_input_clauses): ...here to hold common data. Adjust all
> references to idx, lane, max_vf, is_simt.
>
> ---
> gcc/omp-low.c | 79
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------------
> 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/omp-low.c b/gcc/omp-low.c
> index e69b2b2..13d9b6b 100644
> --- a/gcc/omp-low.c
> +++ b/gcc/omp-low.c
> @@ -3445,20 +3445,28 @@ omp_clause_aligned_alignment (tree clause)
> return build_int_cst (integer_type_node, al);
> }
>
> +
> +/* This structure is part of the interface between
> lower_rec_simd_input_clauses
> + and lower_rec_input_clauses. */
> +
> +struct omplow_simd_context {
> + tree idx;
> + tree lane;
> + int max_vf;
> + bool is_simt;
Any reason ivar and lvar weren't added there too?
> + int &max_vf = sctx->max_vf;
> if (max_vf == 0)
> {
> - if (omp_find_clause (gimple_omp_for_clauses (ctx->stmt),
> - OMP_CLAUSE__SIMT_))
> - max_vf = omp_max_simt_vf ();
> - else
> - max_vf = omp_max_vf ();
> + max_vf = sctx->is_simt ? omp_max_simt_vf () : omp_max_vf ();
I think it would be better just to use sctx->max_vf instead of max_vf,
without the reference.
Otherwise LGTM.
Jakub
