[Bug tree-optimization/92347] [10 Regression] ICE in vect_get_vec_def_for_operand_1, at tree-vect-stmts.c:1537

2019-11-11 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92347 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/92347] [10 Regression] ICE in vect_get_vec_def_for_operand_1, at tree-vect-stmts.c:1537

2019-11-11 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92347 --- Comment #8 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Tue Nov 12 07:54:01 2019 New Revision: 278079 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278079=gcc=rev Log: 2019-11-11 Andre Vieira PR tree-optimization/92347 *

[Bug tree-optimization/92347] [10 Regression] ICE in vect_get_vec_def_for_operand_1, at tree-vect-stmts.c:1537

2019-11-11 Thread avieira at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92347 --- Comment #7 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org --- Thank you!

[Bug tree-optimization/92347] [10 Regression] ICE in vect_get_vec_def_for_operand_1, at tree-vect-stmts.c:1537

2019-11-11 Thread asolokha at gmx dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92347 --- Comment #6 from Arseny Solokha --- (In reply to avieira from comment #5) > I think it would be useful to split testcases 2 and 3 into two new PR's as > they are unrelated issues to 1. PR92460 and PR92461, then.

[Bug tree-optimization/92347] [10 Regression] ICE in vect_get_vec_def_for_operand_1, at tree-vect-stmts.c:1537

2019-11-11 Thread avieira at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92347 --- Comment #5 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org --- Not quite sure the third case has anything to do with epilogue vectorization though... It still manifests itself with it turned off. Seems to be a lack of "folding" again. I think it would be

[Bug tree-optimization/92347] [10 Regression] ICE in vect_get_vec_def_for_operand_1, at tree-vect-stmts.c:1537

2019-11-11 Thread avieira at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92347 --- Comment #4 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org --- The second case seems to be because vectorizable_simd_clone_call seems to be inserting values and phi-nodes on the epilogue's preheader edge which uses a value defined in the main loop's

[Bug tree-optimization/92347] [10 Regression] ICE in vect_get_vec_def_for_operand_1, at tree-vect-stmts.c:1537

2019-11-11 Thread avieira at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92347 --- Comment #3 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org --- I had a look at the first testcase. I think the problem is I was setting the epilogue's safelen to the loop's safelen, after the loop->safelen had been cleared, as we do this after vectorization.

[Bug tree-optimization/92347] [10 Regression] ICE in vect_get_vec_def_for_operand_1, at tree-vect-stmts.c:1537

2019-11-08 Thread asolokha at gmx dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92347 --- Comment #2 from Arseny Solokha --- I believe I have something that is a different manifestation of the same problem. 1. gcc-10.0.0-alpha20191103 snapshot (r277758) ICEs when compiling the following testcase reduced from

[Bug tree-optimization/92347] [10 Regression] ICE in vect_get_vec_def_for_operand_1, at tree-vect-stmts.c:1537

2019-11-04 Thread marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92347 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug tree-optimization/92347] [10 Regression] ICE in vect_get_vec_def_for_operand_1, at tree-vect-stmts.c:1537

2019-11-04 Thread marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92347 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|