--- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 10:06
---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNE
--- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 10:05
---
Subject: Bug 38968
Author: rguenth
Date: Sat Mar 28 10:05:24 2009
New Revision: 145171
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=145171
Log:
2009-03-28 Richard Guenther
PR tree-optimizatio
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-02-01 11:11 ---
Subject: Re: Complex matrix product is not
vectorized
On Sun, 1 Feb 2009, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
> --- Comment #9 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-02-01 10:58
> ---
> > Did you try enabl
--- Comment #9 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-02-01 10:58 ---
> Did you try enabling SSE3 btw?
No. How do I get the enabled SSE* by default?
> Can you post the ifort assembly of the loop?
L_B1.14:# Preds L_B1.14 L_B1.13
lea (%rsi,%r9,8),
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-01 10:49 ---
This is somewhat expected. We vectorize the complex product using vectors
of real parts and vectors of complex parts of two complex numbers (so we
are not using the fancy haddsub SSE codes). Did you try enabling SS
--- Comment #7 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-02-01 10:37 ---
Created an attachment (id=17220)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17220&action=view)
testin complex matrix multiplication
Comment #0 is not fully accurate. With some more testsing with the
attache
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-01-26 14:23 ---
Subject: Re: Complex matrix product is not
vectorized
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009, howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu wrote:
> --- Comment #5 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2009-01-26
> 14:21 ---
>
--- Comment #5 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2009-01-26
14:21 ---
Is the fix for this PR targeted for gcc 4.4.0 or gcc 4.5 stage 1?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38968
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-26 13:25 ---
Patch posted.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|
--- Comment #3 from irar at il dot ibm dot com 2009-01-26 13:09 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Now, I wonder why we do not just use alignment + misalign in that case.
I think you are right.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38968
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-26 11:15 ---
This happens because ivcanon introduces an induction variable that counts
from 2000 to 1. This "confuses" data-ref analysis and we get
base_address: a_24(D)
offset from base address: ()
(() pretmp.2
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-25 17:33 ---
Confirmed. Note the patch mentioned does not try to address any issue present
in the testcase.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
12 matches
Mail list logo
