Andreas Krebbel <[email protected]> writes:
> - vect_nopeel renamed to vect_no_peel
> - documentation added.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> 2017-09-26 Andreas Krebbel <[email protected]>
>
> * doc/sourcebuild.texi: Document vect_no_peel.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> 2017-09-26 Andreas Krebbel <[email protected]>
>
> * g++.dg/vect/slp-pr56812.cc: Check vect_nopeel.
> * lib/target-supports.exp (check_effective_target_vect_nopeel):
> New proc.
Sorry for the bikeshedding, but how about having a positive test
like vect_can_peel instead? ! vect_no... can be hard to read in
complex conditions. (There's already that problem with existing
vect_no...s.)
> -/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "basic block vectorized" 1 "slp1" } } */
>
> +/* For targets without vector loop peeling the loop becomes cheap
>
> + enough to be vectorized. */
>
> +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "basic block vectorized" 1 "slp1" {
> target { ! vect_no_peel }
> } } } */
How about an xfail instead? Then it'll be noticeable (via an XPASS)
if we fail to vectorise the loop when we should.
Thanks,
Richard
