[Bug middle-end/114109] x264 satd vectorization vs LLVM

2024-02-26 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114109 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||53947 CC|

[Bug middle-end/114109] x264 satd vectorization vs LLVM

2024-02-26 Thread rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114109 --- Comment #4 from Robin Dapp --- Yes, as mentioned, vectorization of the first loop is debatable.

[Bug middle-end/114109] x264 satd vectorization vs LLVM

2024-02-26 Thread juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114109 --- Comment #3 from JuzheZhong --- (In reply to Robin Dapp from comment #2) > It is vectorized with a higher zvl, e.g. zvl512b, refer > https://godbolt.org/z/vbfjYn5Kd. OK. I see. But Clang generates many slide instruction which are expensive

[Bug middle-end/114109] x264 satd vectorization vs LLVM

2024-02-26 Thread rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114109 --- Comment #2 from Robin Dapp --- It is vectorized with a higher zvl, e.g. zvl512b, refer https://godbolt.org/z/vbfjYn5Kd.

[Bug middle-end/114109] x264 satd vectorization vs LLVM

2024-02-26 Thread juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114109 --- Comment #1 from JuzheZhong --- It seems RISC-V Clang didn't vectorize it ? https://godbolt.org/z/G4han6vM3