On Wed, 7 Jan 2026, Rainer Orth wrote: > Hi Richard, > > > On Tue, 6 Jan 2026, Rainer Orth wrote: > > > >> Two tests FAIL on 32 and 64-bit SPARC: > >> > >> FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bool-2.c scan-tree-dump vect "optimized: loop > >> vectorized" > >> FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-bool-cmp-4.c scan-tree-dump vect "optimized: loop > >> vectorized" > >> > >> The dump shows > >> > >> gcc.dg/vect/vect-bool-2.c:12:12: missed: not vectorized: relevant stmt > >> not supported: y_7 = _1 <= 16; > >> > >> so the test needs vect_bool_cmp. > > > > <= 16 suggests a comparison in type char, not bool tough. There's no > > effective target for compares in general it seems? But indeed we > > might read that as "QImode compare"? Given that's what > > vect-bool-cmp-2.c requires for example. That also requires > > bool-cmp mask to bool vec_cond_mask. > > > > It would be so nice if the effective target names would map to > > optabs (or combinations of those). > > very true: unless you're intimately familar with vectorization, it's > quite some guesswork which effective-target to use currently.
And even the vectorizer dump could be improved to mention relevant missed optabs (sometimes it's multiple ones or one of many, of course...) Richard.
