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
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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65206
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 34882
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34882action=edit
hack just for the masked load/store case
Incomplete special-casing for the masked
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65206
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65206
--- Comment #1 from Yuri Rumyantsev ysrumyan at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 34867
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34867action=edit
test-case to reproduce
Test needs to be compiled with -Ofast -m64 -mcore-avx2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65206
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
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:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65206
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65206
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65206
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
