[Bug target/68483] [5/6 Regression] gcc 5.2: suboptimal code compared to 4.9

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68483 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Nov 24 10:45:52 2015 New Revision: 230797 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230797=gcc=rev Log: PR target/68483 * tree-vect-generic.c (lower_vec_perm): If

[Bug target/68483] [5/6 Regression] gcc 5.2: suboptimal code compared to 4.9

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68483 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/68483] [5/6 Regression] gcc 5.2: suboptimal code compared to 4.9

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68483 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Nov 24 11:10:45 2015 New Revision: 230799 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230799=gcc=rev Log: PR target/68483 * tree-vect-generic.c (lower_vec_perm): If

[Bug target/68483] [5/6 Regression] gcc 5.2: suboptimal code compared to 4.9

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68483 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3

[Bug target/68483] [5/6 Regression] gcc 5.2: suboptimal code compared to 4.9

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68483 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Ah, no, the problem is not on the backend side, but during veclower2 pass. Before that pass we after the replacement of v>> 64 or v>>32 shifts we have: vect_sum_15.12_58 = VEC_PERM_EXPR

[Bug target/68483] [5/6 Regression] gcc 5.2: suboptimal code compared to 4.9

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68483 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target||i?86-*-*

[Bug target/68483] [5/6 Regression] gcc 5.2: suboptimal code compared to 4.9

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68483 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug target/68483] [5/6 Regression] gcc 5.2: suboptimal code compared to 4.9

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68483 --- Comment #6 from lvqcl.mail at gmail dot com --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2) > With i?86 I can confirm your observation but I don't see it fixed on trunk. Sorry, the GCC 6.x compiler that I downloaded was built with