https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91103
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91103
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:243e0a5b1942879bc005bf150a744e69a4fcdc87
commit r12-3542-g243e0a5b1942879bc005bf150a744e69a4fcdc87
Author: liuhongt
Date: Mon Sep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91103
--- Comment #10 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Peter Cordes from comment #9)
> Thanks for implementing my idea :)
>
> (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #6)
> > For elements located above 128bits, it seems always better(?) to use
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91103
--- Comment #9 from Peter Cordes ---
Thanks for implementing my idea :)
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #6)
> For elements located above 128bits, it seems always better(?) to use
> valign{d,q}
TL:DR:
I think we should still use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91103
--- Comment #8 from Hongtao.liu ---
Fixed in GCC12.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91103
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:60eec23b5eda0f350e572586eee738eab0804a74
commit r12-3425-g60eec23b5eda0f350e572586eee738eab0804a74
Author: liuhongt
Date: Wed Sep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91103
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao.liu ---
For elements located above 128bits, it seems always better(?) to use
valign{d,q}
diff --git a/origin.s b/after.s
index 9a7dfee..9a23f7e 100644
--- a/origin.s
+++ b/after.s
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
foo_v8sf_4:
.LFB0:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91103
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91103
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91103
--- Comment #4 from Peter Cordes ---
We should not put any stock in what ICC does for GNU C native vector indexing.
I think it doesn't know how to optimize that because it *always* spills/reloads
even for `vec[0]` which could be a no-op. And
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91103
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91103
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> So when the vectorizer has the need to use strided stores it would be
> cheapest
> to spill the vector and do N element loads and stores? I guess we can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91103
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
13 matches
Mail list logo
