https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41464
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
Known to work|
--- Comment #9 from bredelin at ucla dot edu 2010-02-04 20:29 ---
In reply to comment #8
So in the end all this boils down to the Frontend / middle-end issue of
weak handling of aligned types.
Would you mind giving a general idea of what the outlook for improvement on
this front is?
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-24 11:52 ---
*** Bug 42846 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-24 12:08 ---
In the testcase from PR42846 one issue is that
base_address: p__3(D)
offset from base address: 0
constant offset from base address: 0
step: 4
aligned to: 128
--- Comment #4 from irar at il dot ibm dot com 2009-09-27 08:06 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
The interesting thing is that data-ref analysis sees 128bit alignment but
the vectorizer still produces
vect_var_.24_59 = M*vect_p.20_57{misalignment: 0};
D.2564_12 = *D.2563_11;
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-09-27 09:43 ---
Subject: Re: vector loads are unnecessarily
split into high and low loads
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009, irar at il dot ibm dot com wrote:
--- Comment #4 from irar at il dot ibm dot com 2009-09-27 08:06 ---
(In reply
--- Comment #6 from irar at il dot ibm dot com 2009-09-27 09:56 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
aligned to refers to the offset misalignment and not to the misalignment
of
base.
Hmm, I believe it refers to base + offset + constant offset.
tree-data-refs.h:
/* Alignment
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-25 09:06 ---
The interesting thing is that data-ref analysis sees 128bit alignment but
the vectorizer still produces
vect_var_.24_59 = M*vect_p.20_57{misalignment: 0};
D.2564_12 = *D.2563_11;
vect_var_.25_61 =
--- Comment #2 from nmiell at comcast dot net 2009-09-25 17:12 ---
Even if it thinks the arrays aren't aligned, that doesn't explain the
completely unnecessarily zeroing of XMM0 or the choice of the load high/low
instructions over MOVUPS.
--
--- Comment #3 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2009-09-25 17:33 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Even if it thinks the arrays aren't aligned, that doesn't explain the
completely unnecessarily zeroing of XMM0 or the choice of the load high/low
instructions over MOVUPS.
This is by design,
10 matches
Mail list logo
