Re: [PATCH] Avoid peeling for gaps if accesses are aligned

2017-03-03 Thread Richard Biener
On Fri, 3 Mar 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Richard Biener writes: > > On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote: > > > >> Richard Biener writes: > >> > On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote: > >> > > >> >> Richard Biener

Re: [PATCH] Avoid peeling for gaps if accesses are aligned

2017-03-03 Thread Richard Sandiford
Richard Biener writes: > On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote: > >> Richard Biener writes: >> > On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote: >> > >> >> Richard Biener writes: >> >> > On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote: >>

Re: [PATCH] Avoid peeling for gaps if accesses are aligned

2017-03-02 Thread Richard Biener
On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Richard Biener writes: > > On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote: > > > >> Richard Biener writes: > >> > On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote: > >> > > >> >> Richard Biener

Re: [PATCH] Avoid peeling for gaps if accesses are aligned

2017-03-01 Thread Richard Sandiford
Richard Biener writes: > On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote: > >> Richard Biener writes: >> > On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote: >> > >> >> Richard Biener writes: >> >> > On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote: >>

Re: [PATCH] Avoid peeling for gaps if accesses are aligned

2017-03-01 Thread Richard Biener
On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Richard Biener writes: > > On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote: > > > >> Richard Biener writes: > >> > On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote: > >> > > >> >> Sorry for the late reply, but: > >> >>

Re: [PATCH] Avoid peeling for gaps if accesses are aligned

2017-03-01 Thread Richard Sandiford
Richard Biener writes: > On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote: > >> Richard Biener writes: >> > On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote: >> > >> >> Sorry for the late reply, but: >> >> >> >> Richard Biener writes: >> >> > On

Re: [PATCH] Avoid peeling for gaps if accesses are aligned

2017-03-01 Thread Richard Biener
On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Richard Biener writes: > > On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote: > > > >> Sorry for the late reply, but: > >> > >> Richard Biener writes: > >> > On Mon, 7 Nov 2016, Richard Biener wrote: > >> > > >> >>

Re: [PATCH] Avoid peeling for gaps if accesses are aligned

2017-03-01 Thread Richard Sandiford
Richard Biener writes: > On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote: > >> Sorry for the late reply, but: >> >> Richard Biener writes: >> > On Mon, 7 Nov 2016, Richard Biener wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> Currently we force peeling for gaps whenever element

Re: [PATCH] Avoid peeling for gaps if accesses are aligned

2017-03-01 Thread Richard Biener
On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Sorry for the late reply, but: > > Richard Biener writes: > > On Mon, 7 Nov 2016, Richard Biener wrote: > > > >> > >> Currently we force peeling for gaps whenever element overrun can occur > >> but for aligned accesses we know

Re: [PATCH] Avoid peeling for gaps if accesses are aligned

2017-03-01 Thread Richard Sandiford
Sorry for the late reply, but: Richard Biener writes: > On Mon, 7 Nov 2016, Richard Biener wrote: > >> >> Currently we force peeling for gaps whenever element overrun can occur >> but for aligned accesses we know that the loads won't trap and thus >> we can avoid this. >> >>

Re: [PATCH] Avoid peeling for gaps if accesses are aligned

2016-11-08 Thread Richard Biener
On Mon, 7 Nov 2016, Richard Biener wrote: > > Currently we force peeling for gaps whenever element overrun can occur > but for aligned accesses we know that the loads won't trap and thus > we can avoid this. > > Bootstrap and regtest running on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu (I expect > some

[PATCH] Avoid peeling for gaps if accesses are aligned

2016-11-07 Thread Richard Biener
Currently we force peeling for gaps whenever element overrun can occur but for aligned accesses we know that the loads won't trap and thus we can avoid this. Bootstrap and regtest running on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu (I expect some testsuite fallout here so didn't bother to invent a new