https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109971
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109971
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
Has this been fixed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109971
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Pan Li :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bffc52838e393a775e13dc48162669b0f43ebe09
commit r14-1493-gbffc52838e393a775e13dc48162669b0f43ebe09
Author: Ju-Zhe Zhong
Date: Thu Jun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109971
--- Comment #10 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to JuzheZhong from comment #9)
> (In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #8)
> > I did SPEC2017 int/fp evaluation on Power10 at Ofast and an extra explicit
> > --param=vect-partial-vector-usage=2 (the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109971
--- Comment #9 from JuzheZhong ---
(In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #8)
> I did SPEC2017 int/fp evaluation on Power10 at Ofast and an extra explicit
> --param=vect-partial-vector-usage=2 (the default is 1 on Power), baseline
> r14-1241 vs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109971
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|testsuite-fail |missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109971
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109971
--- Comment #6 from JuzheZhong ---
>> With decrement IV, the optimized IR actually becomes better, it also aligns
>> >>with our discussion here:
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023->>April/615629.html (Thanks
>> for the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109971
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109971
--- Comment #4 from JuzheZhong ---
(In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #3)
> I'll take a look first.
Thanks a lot. I am sorry for causing such issue to you.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109971
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109971
--- Comment #2 from JuzheZhong ---
It seems this condition:
+ /* If we're vectorizing a loop that uses length "controls" and
+ can iterate more than once, we apply decrementing IV approach
+ in loop control. */
+ if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109971
--- Comment #1 from JuzheZhong ---
It seems this condition:
+ /* If we're vectorizing a loop that uses length "controls" and
+ can iterate more than once, we apply decrementing IV approach
+ in loop control. */
+ if
13 matches
Mail list logo
