--- Comment #14 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-03 09:55
---
Mine.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #15 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-03 12:33
---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #16 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-03 12:34
---
Subject: Bug 37573
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 3 12:32:52 2008
New Revision: 141547
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=141547
Log:
2008-11-03 Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #17 from edwintorok at gmail dot com 2008-11-03 17:50 ---
Thanks.
--
edwintorok at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
--- Comment #13 from edwintorok at gmail dot com 2008-10-29 18:48 ---
I just noticed that this testcase also fails with -O3 on gcc version 4.1.2
20070626 (Red Hat 4.1.2-14), but works on gcc version 4.1.3 20080623
(prerelease) (Debian 4.1.2-23)
--
edwintorok at gmail dot com
common base. Consider s.c[1] and s + i, obviously the accesses can
overlap - would you still say so if the base address of the first one
would be s.c[0]?
Yes, in the case s.c[1] versus s.c[0], we still have to consider the
arrays to potentially overlap.
(really the base address of a
--- Comment #12 from sebpop at gmail dot com 2008-10-22 16:10 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] gcc-4.4 regression: incorrect code generation
with -O1 -ftree-vectorize
common base. Consider s.c[1] and s + i, obviously the accesses can
overlap - would you still say so if the base
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37573
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de 2008-10-16 08:14 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] gcc-4.4 regression:
incorrect code generation with -O1 -ftree-vectorize
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008, spop at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #10 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-15 21:28 ---
split_constant_offset does not handle correctly the offset of
s.c[1] as this is an ADDR_EXPR whose op0 was set by
extract_ops_from_tree to itself, an ADDR_EXPR. Now this code
is not handled in split_constant_offset_1
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-15 21:45 ---
No, ADDR_EXPRs are single because they can have an arbitrary number of operands
(think of a_1-b[i_2][j_3] which has three operands, a_1, i_2 and j_3). In
your case it is a is_gimple_min_invariant, which may add to
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-15 21:47 ---
IMHO the fix for the tuplification bug(!) is to strip the ADDR_EXPR that is
always present on op0 in split_constant_offset_1 so:
case ADDR_EXPR:
{
tree base, poffset;
HOST_WIDE_INT
--- Comment #10 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-16 00:02 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] gcc-4.4 regression: incorrect code generation
with -O1 -ftree-vectorize
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 4:47 PM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
IMHO the fix for the tuplification bug(!) is to
--- Comment #6 from irar at il dot ibm dot com 2008-09-21 07:54 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
The data dependence on the previous loop is clearly not considered, the loop
is
vectorized as if c on the rhs and c on the lhs were different non-overlapping
arrays.
The data dependence
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-19 17:02 ---
Self-contained testcase, which will work even for non-ascii compatible
exec-charset:
/* PR tree-optimization/37573 */
struct S
{
unsigned int *a;
unsigned int b;
unsigned int c[624];
};
static unsigned char
--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-19 17:52 ---
The data dependence on the previous loop is clearly not considered, the loop is
vectorized as if c on the rhs and c on the lhs were different non-overlapping
arrays.
--
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-18 19:14 ---
Also fails on powerpc-linux-gnu.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
17 matches
Mail list logo
