[Bug tree-optimization/25881] unsigned int loop indices don't optimize as good as int or __SIZE_TYPE__ for 64bit targets

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-10-30 02:46 ---
Fixed in 4.2.0.


-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 Resolution||FIXED
   Target Milestone|--- |4.2.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25881

[Bug tree-optimization/25881] unsigned int loop indices don't optimize as good as int or __SIZE_TYPE__ for 64bit targets

[irar at il dot ibm dot com]

--- Comment #2 from irar at il dot ibm dot com  2006-01-29 10:10 ---
Changing double to float, the scalar evolution analyzer returns access function
(float *) ((unsigned int) {0, +, 1}_1 * 4) + (float *) a_12, 
since it fails in type conversion:
(failed conversion:
  type: unsigned int
  base: 0
  step: 
  estimated_nb_iterations: scev_not_known
)
(Without type conversion we get {(float *) a_14, +, 4B}_1).

Data-refs analysis fails to analyze the access pattern, therefore the loop does
not get vectorized.


-- 

irar at il dot ibm dot com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||sebastian dot pop at cri dot
   ||ensmp dot fr, irar at il dot
   ||ibm dot com
   Last reconfirmed|2006-01-20 20:43:27 |2006-01-29 10:10:55
   date||


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25881