On Fri, 28 Mar 2014, Cong Hou wrote:
Ping?
Ok.
Thanks,
Richard.
thanks,
Cong
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Cong Hou co...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 4:43 AM, Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2014, Cong Hou wrote:
On Mon, Mar 17,
Ping?
thanks,
Cong
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Cong Hou co...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 4:43 AM, Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2014, Cong Hou wrote:
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 6:44 AM, Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 4:43 AM, Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2014, Cong Hou wrote:
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 6:44 AM, Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Cong Hou wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 12:58 AM, Richard Biener
On Mon, 17 Mar 2014, Cong Hou wrote:
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 6:44 AM, Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Cong Hou wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 12:58 AM, Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14,
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Cong Hou wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 12:58 AM, Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 08:52:07AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
Consider this fact and if there are alias checks, we can safely
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 02:44:29PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
You mean exactly in the case where the profitability check ensures
that n % vf == 0? Thus effectively if n == maximum trip count?
That's quite a special case, no?
Indeed it is. But I guess that is pretty much the only case where
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 6:44 AM, Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Cong Hou wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 12:58 AM, Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 08:52:07AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2014, Cong Hou wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:27 AM, Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2014, Cong Hou wrote:
Thank you for pointing it out. I didn't realized that alias analysis
has influences on this issue.
The current problem is that the
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 08:52:07AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
Consider this fact and if there are alias checks, we can safely remove
the epilogue if the maximum trip count of the loop is less than or
equal to the calculated threshold.
You have to consider n % vf != 0, so an argument on
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 08:52:07AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
Consider this fact and if there are alias checks, we can safely remove
the epilogue if the maximum trip count of the loop is less than or
equal to the calculated threshold.
You
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 12:58 AM, Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 08:52:07AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
Consider this fact and if there are alias checks, we can safely remove
the epilogue if the maximum trip count
On Wed, 12 Mar 2014, Cong Hou wrote:
Thank you for pointing it out. I didn't realized that alias analysis
has influences on this issue.
The current problem is that the epilogue may be unnecessary if the
loop bound cannot be larger than the number of iterations of the
vectorized loop
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:27 AM, Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2014, Cong Hou wrote:
Thank you for pointing it out. I didn't realized that alias analysis
has influences on this issue.
The current problem is that the epilogue may be unnecessary if the
loop bound
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 04:16:13PM -0700, Cong Hou wrote:
This patch is fixing PR60505 in which the vectorizer may produce
unnecessary epilogues.
Bootstrapped and tested on a x86_64 machine.
OK for trunk?
That looks wrong. Consider the case where the loop isn't versioned,
if you disable
On Wed, 12 Mar 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 04:16:13PM -0700, Cong Hou wrote:
This patch is fixing PR60505 in which the vectorizer may produce
unnecessary epilogues.
Bootstrapped and tested on a x86_64 machine.
OK for trunk?
That looks wrong. Consider the
Thank you for pointing it out. I didn't realized that alias analysis
has influences on this issue.
The current problem is that the epilogue may be unnecessary if the
loop bound cannot be larger than the number of iterations of the
vectorized loop multiplied by VF when the vectorized loop is
This patch is fixing PR60505 in which the vectorizer may produce
unnecessary epilogues.
Bootstrapped and tested on a x86_64 machine.
OK for trunk?
thanks,
Cong
diff --git a/gcc/ChangeLog b/gcc/ChangeLog
index e1d8666..f98e628 100644
--- a/gcc/ChangeLog
+++ b/gcc/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
17 matches
Mail list logo
