Re: PATCH: PR71818: Don't advance IVs with a variable step

2016-08-01 Thread Alan Hayward
On 01/08/2016 14:49, "Richard Biener" wrote: >On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Alan Hayward >wrote: >> In the given test case, the loop is split into vectorised and non >> vectorised >> versions due to peeling. At the end of the loop the IVs

Re: PATCH: PR71818: Don't advance IVs with a variable step

2016-08-01 Thread Richard Biener
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Alan Hayward wrote: > In the given test case, the loop is split into vectorised and non > vectorised > versions due to peeling. At the end of the loop the IVs are incremented to > their latest value. This is achieved by taking the base of the

PATCH: PR71818: Don't advance IVs with a variable step

2016-08-01 Thread Alan Hayward
In the given test case, the loop is split into vectorised and non vectorised versions due to peeling. At the end of the loop the IVs are incremented to their latest value. This is achieved by taking the base of the loop (g_21) and adding the iterations (240) multiplied by the step (_6): : #