Re: "match.pd" (was: Can support TRUNC_DIV_EXPR, TRUNC_MOD_EXPR in GCC vectorization/scalar evolution -- and/or linearization?)

2018-11-04 Thread Marc Glisse
(resent because of mail issues on my end) On Mon, 22 Oct 2018, Thomas Schwinge wrote: I had a quick look at the difference, and a[j][i] remains in this form throughout optimization. If I write instead *((*(a+j))+i) = 0; I get j_10 = tmp_17 / 1025; i_11 = tmp_17 % 1025; _1 = (long

Re: "match.pd" (was: Can support TRUNC_DIV_EXPR, TRUNC_MOD_EXPR in GCC vectorization/scalar evolution -- and/or linearization?)

2018-10-23 Thread Richard Biener
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 6:35 PM Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > Hi! > > Thanks for all your comments already! I continued looked into this for a > bit (but then got interrupted by a higher-priority task). Regarding this > one specifically: > > On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 21:14:11 +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:

"match.pd" (was: Can support TRUNC_DIV_EXPR, TRUNC_MOD_EXPR in GCC vectorization/scalar evolution -- and/or linearization?)

2018-10-22 Thread Thomas Schwinge
Hi! Thanks for all your comments already! I continued looked into this for a bit (but then got interrupted by a higher-priority task). Regarding this one specifically: On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 21:14:11 +0200, Marc Glisse wrote: > On Fri, 12 Oct 2018, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > Hmm, and without