On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 at 04:19, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Richard Biener writes:
> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 8:07 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 08:14, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 13:21, Richard Sandiford
> >> > wrote:
Richard Biener writes:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 8:07 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 08:14, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 13:21, Richard Sandiford
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Leaving the main review to Richard, just some comments...
>>
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 8:07 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 08:14, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 13:21, Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Leaving the main review to Richard, just some comments...
> > >
> > > Prathamesh Kulkarni writes
On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 08:14, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 13:21, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
> >
> > Leaving the main review to Richard, just some comments...
> >
> > Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > > @@ -9774,6 +9777,10 @@ vect_is_simple_cond (tree cond, vec_info *vinfo,
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 13:21, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Leaving the main review to Richard, just some comments...
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > @@ -9774,6 +9777,10 @@ vect_is_simple_cond (tree cond, vec_info *vinfo,
> >
> > When STMT_INFO is vectorized as a nested cycle, for_reduction
Leaving the main review to Richard, just some comments...
Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> @@ -9774,6 +9777,10 @@ vect_is_simple_cond (tree cond, vec_info *vinfo,
>
> When STMT_INFO is vectorized as a nested cycle, for_reduction is true.
>
> + For COND_EXPR if T comes from masked load, and
On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 16:08, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 1:42 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 09:17, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 08:54, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 a
On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 1:42 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 09:17, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 08:54, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 09:36, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 9 Sep 2
On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 09:17, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 08:54, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 09:36, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 16:45, Richard Sandiford
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Prathamesh Kulkarni
On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 08:54, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 09:36, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 16:45, Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > > > With patch, the only following FAIL remains for aarch64-sve.ex
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 09:36, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 16:45, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
> >
> > Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > > With patch, the only following FAIL remains for aarch64-sve.exp:
> > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/sve/cond_unary_2.c -march=armv8.2-a+sve
>
On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 at 19:05, Matthew Malcomson
wrote:
>
> Resending because I forgot to avoid the disclaimer and hence my email
> didn't go to the gcc-patches list.
>
>
>
> On 09/09/19 21:55, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 22:06, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On
Resending because I forgot to avoid the disclaimer and hence my email
didn't go to the gcc-patches list.
On 09/09/19 21:55, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 22:06, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 16:45, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 22:06, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 16:45, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
>> > > With patch, the only following FAIL remains for aarch64-sve.exp:
>> > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/sv
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 22:06, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 16:45, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
> >
> > Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > > With patch, the only following FAIL remains for aarch64-sve.exp:
> > > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/sve/cond_unary_2.c -march=armv8.2-a+sve
>
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 16:45, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > With patch, the only following FAIL remains for aarch64-sve.exp:
> > FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/sve/cond_unary_2.c -march=armv8.2-a+sve
> > scan-assembler-times \\tmovprfx\\t 6
> > which now contains 14.
> > S
Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> With patch, the only following FAIL remains for aarch64-sve.exp:
> FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/sve/cond_unary_2.c -march=armv8.2-a+sve
> scan-assembler-times \\tmovprfx\\t 6
> which now contains 14.
> Should I adjust the test, assuming the change isn't a regression ?
We
On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 at 14:29, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Sorry for the slow reply.
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > On Fri, 30 Aug 2019 at 16:15, Richard Biener
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 11:02 AM Richard Sandiford
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
>
Sorry for the slow reply.
Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> On Fri, 30 Aug 2019 at 16:15, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 11:02 AM Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
>> > > On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 at 21:14, Richard Sandiford
>> > > wrote:
>> > >>
On Fri, 30 Aug 2019 at 16:15, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 11:02 AM Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
> >
> > Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > > On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 at 21:14, Richard Sandiford
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Richard should have the final say, but some comments...
> > >>
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 11:02 AM Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 at 21:14, Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Richard should have the final say, but some comments...
> >>
> >> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> >> > diff --git a/gcc/tree-vect-stmt
Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 at 21:14, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>>
>> Richard should have the final say, but some comments...
>>
>> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
>> > diff --git a/gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c b/gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c
>> > index 1e2dfe5d22d..862206b3256 100644
>> > -
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 at 21:14, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Richard should have the final say, but some comments...
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > diff --git a/gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c b/gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c
> > index 1e2dfe5d22d..862206b3256 100644
> > --- a/gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c
> > +++ b/gcc
Richard should have the final say, but some comments...
Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> diff --git a/gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c b/gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c
> index 1e2dfe5d22d..862206b3256 100644
> --- a/gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c
> +++ b/gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c
> @@ -1989,17 +1989,31 @@ check_load_store_masking (
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 at 17:29, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Richard Biener writes:
> > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 11:58 AM Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> >> ifcvt produces:
> >>
> >>[local count: 1063004407]:
> >> # i_34 = PHI
> >> # ivtmp_5 = PHI
> >> _1 = (long unsigned int) i_34;
> >>
Richard Biener writes:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 11:58 AM Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> ifcvt produces:
>>
>>[local count: 1063004407]:
>> # i_34 = PHI
>> # ivtmp_5 = PHI
>> _1 = (long unsigned int) i_34;
>> _2 = _1 * 2;
>> _3 = a_23(D) + _2;
>> _4 = *_3;
>> _7 = b_24(D) + _2;
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 11:58 AM Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 at 14:48, Richard Biener
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 11:13 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 at 19:43, Richard Sandiford
> >> >
Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 at 14:48, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 11:13 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 at 19:43, Richard Sandiford
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
>> > > > On Fri, 23 Aug 2019
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 at 14:48, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 11:13 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 at 19:43, Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > > > On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 at 18:15, Richard Sandiford
> > > > wrote
On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 11:13 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 at 19:43, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
> >
> > Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > > On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 at 18:15, Richard Sandiford
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > >> > On Thu, 22 Aug 2019
On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 at 19:43, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 at 18:15, Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> >> > On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 at 16:44, Richard Biener
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> It looks a bit odd to me. I'd
Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 at 18:15, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>>
>> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
>> > On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 at 16:44, Richard Biener
>> > wrote:
>> >> It looks a bit odd to me. I'd have expected it to work by generating
>> >> the stmts as before in the ve
On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 at 18:15, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 at 16:44, Richard Biener
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 8:24 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 01:50, Richard Sandiford
> >> > wro
Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 at 16:44, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 8:24 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 01:50, Richard Sandiford
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Richard Biener writes:
>> > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 6
On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 at 16:44, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 8:24 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 01:50, Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Richard Biener writes:
> > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 6:49 PM Richard Biener
> > > > wrote:
> > >
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 8:24 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 01:50, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
> >
> > Richard Biener writes:
> > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 6:49 PM Richard Biener
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 5:06 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > >> wrot
On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 01:50, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Richard Biener writes:
> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 6:49 PM Richard Biener
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 5:06 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hi,
> >> > The attached patch tries to fix PR86753.
> >> >
> >>
Richard Biener writes:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 6:49 PM Richard Biener
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 5:06 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> > The attached patch tries to fix PR86753.
>> >
>> > For following test:
>> > void
>> > f1 (int *restrict x, int *restrict y, int
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 6:49 PM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 5:06 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > The attached patch tries to fix PR86753.
> >
> > For following test:
> > void
> > f1 (int *restrict x, int *restrict y, int *restrict z)
> > {
> > for (int i =
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 5:06 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> Hi,
> The attached patch tries to fix PR86753.
>
> For following test:
> void
> f1 (int *restrict x, int *restrict y, int *restrict z)
> {
> for (int i = 0; i < 100; ++i)
> x[i] = y[i] ? z[i] : 10;
> }
>
> vect dump shows:
> ve
Hi,
The attached patch tries to fix PR86753.
For following test:
void
f1 (int *restrict x, int *restrict y, int *restrict z)
{
for (int i = 0; i < 100; ++i)
x[i] = y[i] ? z[i] : 10;
}
vect dump shows:
vect_cst__42 = { 0, ... };
vect_cst__48 = { 0, ... };
vect__4.7_41 = .MASK_LOAD (ve
41 matches
Mail list logo