https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80517
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80517
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80517
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ---
See also PR55894.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80517
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Matthias Kretz from comment #4)
> A similar test case showing that something is still missing
You don't seem to be passing constants here, so this is unrelated to this PR.
If you file a new one,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80517
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Matthias Kretz from comment #3)
> GCC 9 almost resolves this. However, for some reason this extended test case
> is not fully optimized: https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/jRrHth
> i.e. the call to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80517
--- Comment #4 from Matthias Kretz ---
A similar test case showing that something is still missing
(https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/t1DT7E):
#include
inline __m128i cmp(__m128i x, __m128i y) {
return _mm_cmpeq_epi16(x, y);
}
inline unsigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80517
Matthias Kretz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|8.0 |9.0
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Kretz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80517
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80517
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
Several of those intrinsics are implemented using vector extensions and
constant propagation works fine on those. What seems to be missing here is
constant folding of the very specific
