Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote on 15/12/2011 09:02:57 AM:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 08:32:26AM +0200, Ira Rosen wrote: > > > + cond = build2 (LT_EXPR, boolean_type_node, oprnd0, build_int_cst > > > (itype, 0)); > > > + gsi = gsi_for_stmt (last_stmt); > > > + if (rhs_code == TRUNC_DIV_EXPR) > > > + { > > > + tree var = vect_recog_temp_ssa_var (itype, NULL); > > > + def_stmt > > > + = gimple_build_assign_with_ops3 (COND_EXPR, var, cond, > > > + fold_build2 (MINUS_EXPR, itype, > > > + oprnd1, > > > + build_int_cst (itype, > > > + 1)), > > > + build_int_cst (itype, 0)); > > > + gsi_insert_before (&gsi, def_stmt, GSI_SAME_STMT); > > > > Hmm, you are inserting pattern stmts. This was causing some mess in the > > past as explained here > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-06/msg00801.html. Maybe you can use > > STMT_VINFO_PATTERN_DEF_STMT to keep a chain of def_stmts? > > Yes, I know, but STMT_VINFO_PATTERN_DEF_STMT contains a single gimple stmt, > while I need here several def stmts. > + S3 y_t = b_t < 0 ? N - 1 : 0; > + S2 x_t = b_t + y_t; > + S1' a_t = x_t >> log2 (N); I was talking about putting S3 in STMT_VINFO_PATTERN_DEF_STMT of S2. > I think it can't cause problems in > this case, the stmts will be easily DCEd. But it's really ugly to insert part of pattern sequence, don't you think? Ira > We could turn > STMT_VINFO_PATTERN_DEF_STMT into a gimple_seq perhaps, will try that and see > how invasive that would be. > > Jakub >