https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69710
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69710
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69710
--- Comment #15 from Doug Gilmore ---
> I had a patch too, will send it for review in GCC7 if it's still needed.
Sorry I got side track last week and didn't make much progress.
Please go ahead and submit if you have something you feel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69710
--- Comment #14 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Doug Gilmore from comment #13)
> I think this should be fairly straightforward to fix in the
> autovectorization pass. Hopefully I should be able to post a patch
> in the next few
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69710
--- Comment #13 from Doug Gilmore ---
I think this should be fairly straightforward to fix in the
autovectorization pass. Hopefully I should be able to post a patch
in the next few days.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69710
--- Comment #12 from Doug Gilmore ---
> Yes, I proposed some cleanup passess after vectorization but richi
> thinks it's genrally expensive. So what's implmentation complexity
> of pass_dominator?
One thing we might consider is only enable it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69710
--- Comment #11 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Doug Gilmore from comment #10)
> Created attachment 37681 [details]
> prototype fix
>
> > 1) we failed recognize that use 0 and 2 are identical to each other.
> > This is because
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69710
--- Comment #10 from Doug Gilmore ---
Created attachment 37681
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37681=edit
prototype fix
> 1) we failed recognize that use 0 and 2 are identical to each other.
> This is because vectorizer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69710
--- Comment #8 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Reproduced on arm with saxpy.c. The dump for slp is as below:
:
_82 = prologue_after_cost_adjust.7_43 * 4;
vectp_dy.13_81 = dy_9(D) + _82;
_87 = prologue_after_cost_adjust.7_43 * 4;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69710
--- Comment #9 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Also the problem exists only for arm because it doesn't support [base+index]
addressing mode for vect load/store. I guess mips doesn't either.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69710
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69710
--- Comment #7 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hmm, the first problem is the two iv uses from dy load/store are not recognized
as having same base address/object. This may caused by my patch disabling
expansion of iv base. Or it exists all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69710
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69710
--- Comment #5 from Doug Gilmore ---
Thanks for checking on AArch64 Andrew.
BTW, I made my (incorrect) hunch by running a test on gcc113, where
the installed 4.8 compile showed problems for both DP and SP. (I
assumed that the problem was
14 matches
Mail list logo
