https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82220
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |missed-optimization
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed| |2017-09-15
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Hmm. I suppose veclen is 2 or 4 then... the question is what to do in general
here - we might argue that the epilogue peeling doesn't really count but I'm
not sure if
Index: gcc/tree-vect-loop.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/tree-vect-loop.c (revision 252780)
+++ gcc/tree-vect-loop.c (working copy)
@@ -3663,8 +3663,8 @@ vect_estimate_min_profitable_iters (loop
min_profitable_iters);
/* We want the vectorized loop to execute at least once. */
- if (min_profitable_iters < (vf + peel_iters_prologue + peel_iters_epilogue))
- min_profitable_iters = vf + peel_iters_prologue + peel_iters_epilogue;
+ if (min_profitable_iters < (vf + peel_iters_prologue))
+ min_profitable_iters = vf + peel_iters_prologue;
if (dump_enabled_p ())
dump_printf_loc (MSG_NOTE, vect_location,
is enough to fix the regression - maybe you can check?
