[polly] Reduction detection [V4]

[Tobias Grosser]

On 17/06/2014 01:29, Johannes Doerfert wrote:
> Hey Tobias,
>
> I didn't consider that the same pointer check would make so much
> description/comments invalid.
>
> Would you also agree to the patch if:
>    1) I check __not__ for __identical__ pointers but identical base values
> (like the base address in the memory access).

That works.

>    2) Do not touch the comments [which are more valuable to me than this
> check].

I just attached a patch that reworks the comments such that they make 
sense, but that we still keep the check (that simplifies the dependence 
review). I also updated the one test case, where we now do not detect a 
reduction. Does this one work for you?

Cheers,
Tobias

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0001-Detect-and-mark-reduction-like-statements.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 12383 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20140617/c209c188/attachment.bin>