On 10/08/2013 07:38 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 10/08/2013 05:57 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
Hm.
Index: loop-iv.c
===================================================================
*** loop-iv.c (revision 203243)
--- loop-iv.c (working copy)
*************** along with GCC; see the file COPYING3.
*** 62,67 ****
--- 62,68 ----
#include "df.h"
#include "hash-table.h"
#include "dumpfile.h"
+ #include "tree-ssa-loop-niter.h"
loop-iv.c is RTL land (likewise loop-unroll.c and loop-unswitch.c),
why do they need tree-ssa-loop-niter.h?
Apart from that the patch is ok.
we've got a bit of a mess in a number of places... I've cleaned up a
few of the easy ones I found.
This file is required for record_niter_bound(),
max_loop_iterations_int() and estimated_loop_iterations_int().. so all
bounds estimations. There was enough of an infrastructural
requirement for these routines within the file that I decided it was
beyond the scope of what I'm doing at the moment to split them out.
Eventually I'd like to break this up into modules and make sure that
thing aren't creeping in from the wrong places, and restructure a
bit... Loop suffer from that (like here), cfg has a couple of places
where either rtl or generic cfg routines care calling into a routine
that can understand SSA. I noted one in one of the earlier patches
that I'll have to get back to. This sort of thing has in fact
prompted me to start looking now at our include web and what should be
within the logical modules so we can more easily identify these sorts
of things.
Too many things to clean up!! I think I could be doing this sort of
thing for the next 8 months easily :-)
I'd prefer to come back and revisit this with a followup to try to
split tree-ssa-loop-niter.c into another component, maybe
loop-niter.[ch]...
Andrew
I just took a quick stab at it... I think its pretty involved and
someone with better loop comprehension should probably look at the
followup of removing that requirement.
estimate_numbers_of_iterations_loop() in particular uses last_stmt(), so
it requires gimple.. and there is sprinkling of gimple specific stuff
all through it... I have no idea how this is suppose to work for rtl.
This is the way it is now, so at least by including that header, it
exposes the hidden problem and either I can revisit it later, or someone
else can tackle that. it seems *really* messy.
OK as is for now?
Andrew
