https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87105
--- Comment #16 from Petr ---
Thanks a lot! I hope much more code would benefit from this change.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87105
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87105
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Oct 26 07:38:59 2018
New Revision: 265522
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265522=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-10-26 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/87105
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87105
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Oct 24 11:46:58 2018
New Revision: 265457
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265457=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-10-24 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/87105
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87105
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
With the duplicate store issue fixed in the vectorizer we run into the SLP
vectorization issue that limits the growth of the SLP tree (yes, it's a tree
and thus tends to grow expontential easily...).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87105
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
The code is now better but not vectorized due to mentioned issues.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87105
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Oct 23 11:34:56 2018
New Revision: 265421
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265421=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-10-23 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/87105
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87105
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87105
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
I've also had patches adding an early phiopt pass which would have solved the
CFG mess VRP creates.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87105
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||alias
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87105
--- Comment #6 from Petr ---
I think the test-case can even be simplified to something like this:
#include
#include
struct Point {
double x, y;
void reset(double x, double y) {
this->x = x;
this->y = y;
}
};
void f1(Point* p,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87105
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87105
--- Comment #4 from Petr ---
I think this code is vectorizable without --fast-math. However, it seems that
once a min/max (or something else) is kept scalar it poisons the rest of the
code.
The following code works perfectly (scalar):
```
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87105
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
With -ffast-math we (awkwardly) vectorize a couple min/max at the beginning,
but clearly not the whole thing like llvm.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87105
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
One more point is in C++ (a < b ? b : a) is a lvalue which might also interfer
with converting it into min/max.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87105
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
So I think it is an interesting interaction in that GCC cannot change a < b ? a
: b into MIN_EXPR. There might be a reasoning behind this, dealing with NaNs,
INF, etc.
16 matches
Mail list logo
