[PATCH] [Polly] Model scalar dependences to avoid trivial statements

[Tobias Grosser]

================
Comment at: lib/Analysis/TempScopInfo.cpp:150
@@ -147,1 +149,3 @@
+  bool canSynthesizeInst = canSynthesize(Inst, LI, SE, R);
+  if (canSynthesizeInst && !Functions.empty())
     return false;
----------------
jdoerfert wrote:
> grosser wrote:
> > I don't really understand why scalar dependences to uses outside of the scop region only need to be modelled for otherwise trivial basic blocks. Should we not model them in general?
> Maybe,... I'll think about it.
> 
> [Later I wanted to model the write only for the last iteration of the domain if there is no other scalar dependence for that instruction]
OK, I would be interested in the outcome of your thoughts. ;-)

[Why would you want to only model the last write? What would be the benefit?]

================
Comment at: lib/Analysis/TempScopInfo.cpp:177
@@ +176,3 @@
+    if (inRegion && canSynthesizeInst)
+      continue;
+
----------------
jdoerfert wrote:
> grosser wrote:
> > Is this condition not implied by the condition below?
> canSynthesizeInst is not equal to canSynthesize(UI,...), at least I don't have a good reason why it should be.
Right. That's fine than.

http://reviews.llvm.org/D7473

EMAIL PREFERENCES
  http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/