Giovanni Bajo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 17/06/2007 20:43:15: > Hi Dorit, > > some years ago I posted these testcases to Bugzilla's GCC: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18437 > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18438 > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18439 > > It looks like none of those are vectorized as of GCC 4.3. I read today that > you're asking for more vectorizer testsuite so I was wondering: > > 1) Shall we add a GCC bugzilla component for the vectorizer? Currently the > bugs are filed under "tree-optimization" which might be a little toogeneric, > these days. >
Maybe, I'm not sure. A lot of times the vectorizer missed-optimization bugs depend on other components of the compiler, so I don't know if filing them under a "vectorizer" component would help. I don't have a strong preference about this. > 2) Do you need more testcases from geometric code like those above? Those 3 > above are pretty simple in fact, so I doubt more complex ones can beof help, > but I can extract something more from my code if you want... these 3 are actually not so simple... the main thing that's blocking 2 of them right now is that they need support for stores with gaps, which can be added except the other problem is that the vectorizer thinks it's not profitable to vectorize them (or rather 2 of them. as does ICC by the way). Since the time you opened these PRs we came quite a bit closer to vectorizing these (the support for interleaved accesses and for multiple data-types were also required). It will be fun to add the last missing bit - the support for the stores-with-gaps. I hope we'll get to it before too long... If you have other (hot) code examples that expose different missing features I think that's always interesting to know about (but if it's like the codes above then maybe it will not have much added value...). thanks! dorit > -- > Giovanni Bajo >
