https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100089
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100089
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:199cd0e0f8744ca1e61a95987b2d020a592a46d9
commit r12-6795-g199cd0e0f8744ca1e61a95987b2d020a592a46d9
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100089
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|11.0|11.2
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100089
--- Comment #3 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Is this really a costing issue, or should we instead reject the
BB fallback if it leaves any scalar COND_EXPRs around? This would
be similar to the way that we reject IFN_MASK_LOAD/STORE call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100089
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #3)
> Is this really a costing issue, or should we instead reject the
> BB fallback if it leaves any scalar COND_EXPRs around? This would
> be similar to the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100089
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|11.2|11.3
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100089
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100089
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:819b7c3a339e3bdaf85cd55954c5536bd98aae09
commit r12-3103-g819b7c3a339e3bdaf85cd55954c5536bd98aae09
Author: liuhongt
Date: Wed Aug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100089
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
So if we agree to a sane way to cost branchy code on the scalar side then it
should be possible to compare the scalar cost of the not if-converted inner
loop body against the full partially vectorized and i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100089
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 51350
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51350&action=edit
patch
This implements scanning for not vectorized COND_EXPRs with
-fvect-cost-model=very-cheap when vectorizi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100089
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9216ee6d1195d48388f825cf1b072e570129cbbe
commit r12-3116-g9216ee6d1195d48388f825cf1b072e570129cbbe
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100089
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
So this fixes it for -fvect-cost-model=very-cheap. One could argue that we
should enable the code for all cost models, fixing the -O3 regression (and
backportable to the branch).
I'll see to experiment w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100089
Bug 100089 depends on bug 102128, which changed state.
Bug 102128 Summary: [12 Regression] Huge performance drop for 519.lbm_r since
r12-3116-g9216ee6d1195d48388f825cf1b072e570129cbbe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102128
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100089
Bug 100089 depends on bug 102142, which changed state.
Bug 102142 Summary: [12 Regression] ICE Segmentation fault since
r12-3222-g89f33f44addbf985
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102142
What|Removed
14 matches
Mail list logo
