https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114932
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114932
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Likely
Base: (integer(kind=4) *) + ((sizetype) ((unsigned long) l0_19(D) *
324) + 36)
vs.
Base: (integer(kind=4) *) + ((sizetype) ((integer(kind=8)) l0_19(D)
* 81) + 9) * 4
where we fail to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114932
--- Comment #6 from Tamar Christina ---
Created attachment 58096
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58096=edit
exchange2.fppized-bad.f90.187t.ivopts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114932
--- Comment #5 from Tamar Christina ---
Created attachment 58095
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58095=edit
exchange2.fppized-good.f90.187t.ivopts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114932
--- Comment #4 from Tamar Christina ---
reduced more:
---
module brute_force
integer, parameter :: r=9
integer block(r, r, 0)
contains
subroutine brute
do
do
do
do
do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114932
--- Comment #3 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > which is harder for prefetchers to follow.
>
> This seems like a limitation in the HW prefetcher rather than anything else.
> Maybe the cost model for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114932
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114932
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
The change likely made SCEV/IVOPTs "stop" at more convenient places, but we can
only know when there's more detailed analysis.
