[Bug tree-optimization/113441] [14 Regression] Fail to fold the last element with multiple loop since g:2efe3a7de0107618397264017fb045f237764cc7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113441 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org Prior

[Bug tree-optimization/113441] [14 Regression] Fail to fold the last element with multiple loop since g:2efe3a7de0107618397264017fb045f237764cc7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113441 --- Comment #44 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Richard Sandiford from comment #42) > Created attachment 57605 [details] > proof-of-concept patch to suppress peeling for gaps > > How about the attached? It records whether all accesses tha

[Bug tree-optimization/113441] [14 Regression] Fail to fold the last element with multiple loop since g:2efe3a7de0107618397264017fb045f237764cc7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113441 --- Comment #43 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 4 Mar 2024, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113441 > > --- Comment #41 from Richard Sandiford --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from c

[Bug tree-optimization/113441] [14 Regression] Fail to fold the last element with multiple loop since g:2efe3a7de0107618397264017fb045f237764cc7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113441 Richard Sandiford changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #57602|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug tree-optimization/113441] [14 Regression] Fail to fold the last element with multiple loop since g:2efe3a7de0107618397264017fb045f237764cc7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113441 --- Comment #41 from Richard Sandiford --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #40) > So I wonder if we can use "local costing" to decide a gather is always OK > compared to the alternative with peeling for gaps. On x86 gather tends > to b

[Bug tree-optimization/113441] [14 Regression] Fail to fold the last element with multiple loop since g:2efe3a7de0107618397264017fb045f237764cc7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113441 --- Comment #40 from Richard Biener --- So I wonder if we can use "local costing" to decide a gather is always OK compared to the alternative with peeling for gaps. On x86 gather tends to be slow compared to open-coding it. In the future we mi

[Bug tree-optimization/113441] [14 Regression] Fail to fold the last element with multiple loop since g:2efe3a7de0107618397264017fb045f237764cc7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113441 --- Comment #39 from Richard Sandiford --- (In reply to Richard Sandiford from comment #38) > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #37) > > Even more iteration looks bad. I do wonder why when gather can avoid > > peeling for GAPs using load

[Bug tree-optimization/113441] [14 Regression] Fail to fold the last element with multiple loop since g:2efe3a7de0107618397264017fb045f237764cc7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113441 --- Comment #38 from Richard Sandiford --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #37) > Even more iteration looks bad. I do wonder why when gather can avoid > peeling for GAPs using load-lanes cannot? Like you say, we don't realise that all

[Bug tree-optimization/113441] [14 Regression] Fail to fold the last element with multiple loop since g:2efe3a7de0107618397264017fb045f237764cc7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113441 --- Comment #37 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Richard Sandiford from comment #36) > Created attachment 57602 [details] > proof-of-concept patch to suppress peeling for gaps > > This patch does what I suggested in the previous comment: if

[Bug tree-optimization/113441] [14 Regression] Fail to fold the last element with multiple loop since g:2efe3a7de0107618397264017fb045f237764cc7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113441 --- Comment #36 from Richard Sandiford --- Created attachment 57602 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57602&action=edit proof-of-concept patch to suppress peeling for gaps This patch does what I suggested in the previous comm

[Bug tree-optimization/113441] [14 Regression] Fail to fold the last element with multiple loop since g:2efe3a7de0107618397264017fb045f237764cc7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113441 --- Comment #35 from Richard Sandiford --- Maybe I've misunderstood the flow of the ticket, but it looks to me like we do still correctly recognise the truncating scatter stores. And, on their own, we would be able to convert them into masked s

[Bug tree-optimization/113441] [14 Regression] Fail to fold the last element with multiple loop since g:2efe3a7de0107618397264017fb045f237764cc7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113441 --- Comment #34 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 1 Mar 2024, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113441 > > --- Comment #33 from Richard Sandiford --- > Can you give me a chance to look a

[Bug tree-optimization/113441] [14 Regression] Fail to fold the last element with multiple loop since g:2efe3a7de0107618397264017fb045f237764cc7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113441 --- Comment #33 from Richard Sandiford --- Can you give me a chance to look at it a bit when I back? This doesn't feel like the way to go to me.

[Bug tree-optimization/113441] [14 Regression] Fail to fold the last element with multiple loop since g:2efe3a7de0107618397264017fb045f237764cc7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113441 --- Comment #32 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Richard Sandiford from comment #31) > (In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #29) > > This works fine for normal gather and scatters but doesn't work for widening > > gathers and narrowing

[Bug tree-optimization/113441] [14 Regression] Fail to fold the last element with multiple loop since g:2efe3a7de0107618397264017fb045f237764cc7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113441 --- Comment #31 from Richard Sandiford --- (In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #29) > This works fine for normal gather and scatters but doesn't work for widening > gathers and narrowing scatters which only the pattern seems to handle. I'm

[Bug tree-optimization/113441] [14 Regression] Fail to fold the last element with multiple loop since g:2efe3a7de0107618397264017fb045f237764cc7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113441 --- Comment #30 from Richard Biener --- The x86 and "emulation" paths handle narrowing/widening during code generation (but yes, the IFN path doesn't). A fix would be to do similar as for the gs_info.decl case in vectorizable_load/store and han

[Bug tree-optimization/113441] [14 Regression] Fail to fold the last element with multiple loop since g:2efe3a7de0107618397264017fb045f237764cc7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113441 Tamar Christina changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comme

[Bug tree-optimization/113441] [14 Regression] Fail to fold the last element with multiple loop since g:2efe3a7de0107618397264017fb045f237764cc7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113441 --- Comment #28 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 26 Feb 2024, tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113441 > > --- Comment #27 from Tamar Christina --- > Created attachment 57538 > --> ht

[Bug tree-optimization/113441] [14 Regression] Fail to fold the last element with multiple loop since g:2efe3a7de0107618397264017fb045f237764cc7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113441 --- Comment #27 from Tamar Christina --- Created attachment 57538 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57538&action=edit proposed1.patch proposed patch, this gets the gathers and scatters back. doing regression run.

[Bug tree-optimization/113441] [14 Regression] Fail to fold the last element with multiple loop since g:2efe3a7de0107618397264017fb045f237764cc7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113441 Tamar Christina changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Summary|[14 Regression]