https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65206
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
*** Bug 69732 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65206
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||12.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65206
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f92901a508305f291fcf2acae0825379477724de
commit r12-3677-gf92901a508305f291fcf2acae0825379477724de
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65206
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65206
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
*** Bug 72739 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65206
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 2 Jan 2017, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65206
>
> --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Adding some flag on the MASK_STORE or MASK_LO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65206
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Adding some flag on the MASK_STORE or MASK_LOAD is not hard, it can be in
another argument, or some GF_*, whatever. But I don't understand here what is
the difference between originally pointer based and arr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65206
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
For the masked load/store case we could also simply put the "real" memory
access
in place of the pointer argument. To make that valid GIMPLE we could wrap it
inside a fake VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR for example - li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65206
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 34882
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34882&action=edit
hack just for the masked load/store case
Incomplete special-casing for the masked load/store case. We need to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65206
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65206
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
I'm talking about
(compute_affine_dependence
stmt_a: _5 = a1[i_16];
stmt_b: MASK_STORE (_34, 0B, _ifc__32, _9);
) -> dependence analysis failed
somehow it works for
(compute_affine_dependence
stmt_a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65206
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
We apply versioning for aliasing but compute it as always aliasing in some way,
thus the runtime check gets immediately folded and thus the vectorized loop
removed:
t.c:7:3: note: create runtime check for d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65206
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65206
--- Comment #1 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
Created attachment 34867
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34867&action=edit
test-case to reproduce
Test needs to be compiled with -Ofast -m64 -mcore-avx2 options.
14 matches
Mail list logo