On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 8:58 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 09/06/2016 12:54 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> LOOP_VINFO_NITERS is computed as LOOP_VINFO_NITERSM1 + 1, which could
>> overflow in loop niters' type. Vectorizer needs to generate more code
>> computing vectorized niters
On 09/06/2016 12:54 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
Hi,
LOOP_VINFO_NITERS is computed as LOOP_VINFO_NITERSM1 + 1, which could overflow
in loop niters' type. Vectorizer needs to generate more code computing
vectorized niters if overflow does happen. However, For common loops, there is
no overflow
Hi Bin,
On 07/09/16 17:52, Bin.Cheng wrote:
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 1:10 AM, kugan wrote:
Hi Bin,
On 07/09/16 04:54, Bin Cheng wrote:
Hi,
LOOP_VINFO_NITERS is computed as LOOP_VINFO_NITERSM1 + 1, which could
overflow in loop niters' type. Vectorizer
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 1:10 AM, kugan wrote:
> Hi Bin,
>
>
> On 07/09/16 04:54, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> LOOP_VINFO_NITERS is computed as LOOP_VINFO_NITERSM1 + 1, which could
>> overflow in loop niters' type. Vectorizer needs to generate more code
>>
Hi Bin,
On 07/09/16 04:54, Bin Cheng wrote:
Hi,
LOOP_VINFO_NITERS is computed as LOOP_VINFO_NITERSM1 + 1, which could overflow
in loop niters' type. Vectorizer needs to generate more code computing
vectorized niters if overflow does happen. However, For common loops, there is
no overflow
Hi,
LOOP_VINFO_NITERS is computed as LOOP_VINFO_NITERSM1 + 1, which could overflow
in loop niters' type. Vectorizer needs to generate more code computing
vectorized niters if overflow does happen. However, For common loops, there is
no overflow actually, this patch tries to prove the