Hi, > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Sandiford [mailto:richard.sandif...@arm.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2020 9:03 PM > To: Yangfei (Felix) <felix.y...@huawei.com> > Cc: Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>; Richard Biener > <richard.guent...@gmail.com>; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH PR95961] vect: ICE: in exact_div, at poly-int.h:2182 > > "Yangfei (Felix)" <felix.y...@huawei.com> writes: > >> On June 30, 2020 4:23:03 PM GMT+02:00, Richard Sandiford > >> <richard.sandif...@arm.com> wrote: > >> >Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> writes: > >> >> So it seems odd to somehow put in the number of vectors... so to > >> >> me it would have made sense if it did > >> >> > >> >> possible_npeel_number = lower_bound (nscalars); > >> >> > >> >> or whateveris necessary to make the polys happy. Thus simply > >> >> elide the vect_get_num_vectors call? But it's been very long > >> >> since I've dived into the alignment peeling code... > >> > > >> >Ah, I see what you mean. So rather than: > >> > > >> > /* Save info about DR in the hash table. Also include peeling > >> > amounts according to the explanation above. */ > >> > for (j = 0; j < possible_npeel_number; j++) > >> > { > >> > vect_peeling_hash_insert (&peeling_htab, loop_vinfo, > >> > dr_info, npeel_tmp); > >> > npeel_tmp += target_align / dr_size; > >> > } > >> > > >> >just have something like: > >> > > >> > while (known_le (npeel_tmp, nscalars)) > >> > { > >> > … > >> > } > >> > > >> >? > >> > >> Yeah. > > > > Not sure if I understand correctly. I am supposing the following check in > the original code is not necessary if we go like that. > > > > 1822 if (unlimited_cost_model (LOOP_VINFO_LOOP (loop_vinfo))) > > > > Is that correct? > > I think we still need it. I guess there are two choices: > > - make nscalars default to npeel_tmp before the “if” above.
I think this will be simpler. How about the v2 patch? Bootstrapped and tested on aarch64-linux-gnu & x86_64-linux-gnu. Thanks, Felix
pr95961-v2.diff
Description: pr95961-v2.diff
