[PATCH] D108048: [DependenceAnalysis] Conservatively exit on type mismatch

[Michael Kruse via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

Meinersbur added inline comments.


================
Comment at: llvm/include/llvm/Analysis/DependenceAnalysis.h:285
     /// FullDependence) with as much information as can be gleaned.
-    /// The flag PossiblyLoopIndependent should be set by the caller
-    /// if it appears that control flow can reach from Src to Dst
-    /// without traversing a loop back edge.
+    /// If PossiblyLoopIndependant is true will also test for intra-iteration
+    /// dependencies.
----------------
bmahjour wrote:
> Meinersbur wrote:
> > Maybe we should rename `PossiblyLoopIndependent` to something else. I don't see how "LoopIndependent" makes a statement about non-loop dependences.
> Any suggestions on what the rename should be? "Loop-Independent" is well defined in the literature and seems appropriately used here.
It's just an idea. If it a well-established term we can keep it, I just don't think it is a good one. It gets really confusing if we consider that a dependence can be both, loop-carried and within the same iteration.
```
  for (int i = ...) {
    use(A[0]);
    A[i] = ...;
    use(A[0]);
  }
```

The comment itself would suggest `PossiblyIntraIteration`.




CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D108048/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D108048