https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112661
Richard Sandiford changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112661
--- Comment #16 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:061a82fa2b751b42d0d8ddfcd45367c848d3ee64
commit r14-5878-g061a82fa2b751b42d0d8ddfcd45367c848d3ee64
Author: Richard Sandiford
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112661
Richard Sandiford changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org |rsandifo at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112661
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Sandiford from comment #13)
> In vect_create_constant_vectors, I think the uniform_elt needs
> to come first, and needs to be used irrespective of whether the
> number of elements is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112661
--- Comment #13 from Richard Sandiford ---
In vect_create_constant_vectors, I think the uniform_elt needs
to come first, and needs to be used irrespective of whether the
number of elements is constant. The general tree_vector_builder
has a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112661
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 56668
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56668=edit
patch (not working)
So this tries this, moving the duplicate-and-interleave check and changing
code generation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112661
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=112661
--- Comment #10 from Richard Sandiford ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
> So do we expect - independed of whether a constant/external is used as mask
> - that uniform constants/externals are generatable and thus we can elide the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112661
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Sandiford from comment #8)
> I think we're going down the wrong path here. If I've understood
> the original change correctly, dummy masks aren't special because
> they're masks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112661
--- Comment #8 from Richard Sandiford ---
I think we're going down the wrong path here. If I've understood
the original change correctly, dummy masks aren't special because
they're masks. They're special because all elements are equal to
the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112661
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
diff --git a/gcc/tree-vect-slp.cc b/gcc/tree-vect-slp.cc
index 4a09b3c2aca..d0967240ae3 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-vect-slp.cc
+++ b/gcc/tree-vect-slp.cc
@@ -766,7 +766,10 @@ vect_get_and_check_slp_defs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112661
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
As suggested in the review at time the change would ideally be restricted to
actual mask operands, not random BOOLEAN_TYPE ones.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112661
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14] RISC-V ICE: in |[14] RISC-V ICE: in
13 matches
Mail list logo