= _27 * { 3, 4, 5, 7 };
> MEM [(int *) + 16B] = vect__9.9_28;
>
>
> We can confirm it here: https://godbolt.org/z/6jGrEoz9s
So same thing, add && { ! vect128 }?
>
>
> juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
>
> From: Richard Biener
> Date: 2024-01-16 15:43
> To: Juzhe-Zhong
Biener
Date: 2024-01-16 15:43
To: Juzhe-Zhong
CC: gcc-patches; pinskia
Subject: Re: [PATCH] test regression fix: Remove xfail for variable length
targets of bb-slp-subgroups-3.c
On Tue, 16 Jan 2024, Juzhe-Zhong wrote:
> Notice there is a regression recently:
> XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-subgrou
On Tue, 16 Jan 2024, Juzhe-Zhong wrote:
> Notice there is a regression recently:
> XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-subgroups-3.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects
> scan-tree-dump-times slp2 "optimized: basic block" 2
> XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-subgroups-3.c scan-tree-dump-times slp2 "optimized:
> basic
Notice there is a regression recently:
XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-subgroups-3.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects
scan-tree-dump-times slp2 "optimized: basic block" 2
XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-subgroups-3.c scan-tree-dump-times slp2 "optimized:
basic block" 2
Checked on both ARM SVE an RVV: