Hi!
Dunno how I've managed to break the branch on Friday, anyway, here is an
obvious fix, committed to the branch.
2013-11-11 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
* tree-vect-data-refs.c (vect_analyze_data_refs): Check loop->safelen
rather than loop->simdlen.
* tree-vect-stmts.c (vectorizable_simd_clone_call): Likewise.
--- gcc/tree-vect-data-refs.c.jj 2013-11-08 17:12:49.000000000 +0100
+++ gcc/tree-vect-data-refs.c 2013-11-11 16:25:15.363311414 +0100
@@ -2982,7 +2982,7 @@ vect_analyze_data_refs (loop_vec_info lo
gimple stmt = gsi_stmt (gsi);
if (!find_data_references_in_stmt (loop, stmt, &datarefs))
{
- if (is_gimple_call (stmt) && loop->simdlen)
+ if (is_gimple_call (stmt) && loop->safelen)
{
tree fndecl = gimple_call_fndecl (stmt), op;
if (fndecl != NULL_TREE)
--- gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c.jj 2013-11-08 17:12:49.000000000 +0100
+++ gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c 2013-11-11 16:26:43.254861184 +0100
@@ -2334,7 +2340,7 @@ vectorizable_simd_clone_call (gimple stm
/* If the function isn't const, only allow it in simd loops where user
has asserted that at least nunits consecutive iterations can be
performed using SIMD instructions. */
- if ((loop == NULL || loop->simdlen < nunits) && gimple_vuse (stmt))
+ if ((loop == NULL || loop->safelen < nunits) && gimple_vuse (stmt))
{
arginfo.release ();
return false;
Jakub
