https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70138
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Mar 9 16:41:19 2016
New Revision: 234086
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234086&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-03-09 Richard Biener
Jakub Jelinek
PR tree-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70138
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70138
--- Comment #12 from Bernd Schmidt ---
I arrived at the same conclusion, and I was testing the following:
Index: gcc/tree-vect-loop-manip.c
===
--- gcc/tree-vect-loop-manip.c (revi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70138
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Simpler testcase not requiring strided stores:
double u[33];
__attribute__((noinline, noclone)) static void
foo (int *x)
{
double c = 0.0;
int a, b;
for (a = 0; a < 33; a++)
{
for (b = 0;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70138
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
So I have a simple patch, still undecided whether I should include
vect_nested_cycle (and thus use VECTORIZABLE_CYCLE_DEF) or not. It's simply
vect_double_reduction_def that is missing for this testcase (a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70138
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|bernds at g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70138
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Further improved testcase (just decrease number of iterations somewhat, and
make sure the u elements that are summed are different in each outer loop
iteration, to verify the vectorizer doesn't just multiply
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70138
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The bogus assignment is generated by vect_update_ivs_after_vectorizer, niters
is
1334 and step_expr 1335. But it misses the fact that the value it is
multiplying is not constant, but changes in every iterati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70138
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
As a proof of concept, I've changed in the debugger the last stmt in that bb
to:
tmp.5_53 = stmp_c_10.10_67;
and called update_stmt on it, and the result is the test passing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70138
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I've already spent some time on this last night. It fails even when foo is not
inlined:
double u[1782225];
__attribute__((noinline, noclone)) static void
foo (int *x)
{
double c = 0.0;
int a, b;
for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70138
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70138
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70138
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
r229172:
commit 71de77d8ba195e98400cd3fd2498e1c2c82a7ed1
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Oct 22 13:33:17 2015 +
2015-10-22 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/19049
PR tree-optimiza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70138
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
14 matches
Mail list logo
