_loop_vec_info::_loop_vec_info used get_loop_array to get the
order of the blocks when creating stmt_vec_infos, but then used
dfs_enumerate_from to get the order of the blocks that the rest
of the vectoriser uses. We should be able to use that order
for creating stmt_vec_infos too.
2018-07-30 Richard Sandiford <richard.sandif...@arm.com>
gcc/
* tree-vect-loop.c (_loop_vec_info::_loop_vec_info): Use the
result of dfs_enumerate_from when constructing stmt_vec_infos,
instead of additionally calling get_loop_body.
Index: gcc/tree-vect-loop.c
===================================================================
*** gcc/tree-vect-loop.c 2018-07-30 12:40:59.366015643 +0100
--- gcc/tree-vect-loop.c 2018-07-30 12:40:59.362015678 +0100
*************** _loop_vec_info::_loop_vec_info (struct l
*** 834,844 ****
scalar_loop (NULL),
orig_loop_info (NULL)
{
! /* Create/Update stmt_info for all stmts in the loop. */
! basic_block *body = get_loop_body (loop);
! for (unsigned int i = 0; i < loop->num_nodes; i++)
{
! basic_block bb = body[i];
gimple_stmt_iterator si;
for (si = gsi_start_phis (bb); !gsi_end_p (si); gsi_next (&si))
--- 834,851 ----
scalar_loop (NULL),
orig_loop_info (NULL)
{
! /* CHECKME: We want to visit all BBs before their successors (except for
! latch blocks, for which this assertion wouldn't hold). In the simple
! case of the loop forms we allow, a dfs order of the BBs would the same
! as reversed postorder traversal, so we are safe. */
!
! unsigned int nbbs = dfs_enumerate_from (loop->header, 0, bb_in_loop_p,
! bbs, loop->num_nodes, loop);
! gcc_assert (nbbs == loop->num_nodes);
!
! for (unsigned int i = 0; i < nbbs; i++)
{
! basic_block bb = bbs[i];
gimple_stmt_iterator si;
for (si = gsi_start_phis (bb); !gsi_end_p (si); gsi_next (&si))
*************** _loop_vec_info::_loop_vec_info (struct l
*** 855,870 ****
add_stmt (stmt);
}
}
- free (body);
-
- /* CHECKME: We want to visit all BBs before their successors (except for
- latch blocks, for which this assertion wouldn't hold). In the simple
- case of the loop forms we allow, a dfs order of the BBs would the same
- as reversed postorder traversal, so we are safe. */
-
- unsigned int nbbs = dfs_enumerate_from (loop->header, 0, bb_in_loop_p,
- bbs, loop->num_nodes, loop);
- gcc_assert (nbbs == loop->num_nodes);
}
/* Free all levels of MASKS. */
--- 862,867 ----
