Richard Biener writes:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 4:26 PM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> Richard Biener writes:
>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 10:27 PM, Richard Sandiford
>>> wrote:
Richard Biener writes:
> On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 11:45 AM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> Index: gc
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 4:26 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Richard Biener writes:
>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 10:27 PM, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>> Richard Biener writes:
On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 11:45 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Index: gcc/tree-data-ref.c
> ===
Richard Biener writes:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 10:27 PM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> Richard Biener writes:
>>> On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 11:45 AM, Richard Sandiford
>>> wrote:
Index: gcc/tree-data-ref.c
===
--- gc
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 10:27 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Richard Biener writes:
>> On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 11:45 AM, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>> Index: gcc/tree-data-ref.c
>>> ===
>>> --- gcc/tree-data-ref.c 2018-02-14 13:14
Richard Biener writes:
> On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 11:45 AM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> Index: gcc/tree-data-ref.c
>> ===
>> --- gcc/tree-data-ref.c 2018-02-14 13:14:36.268006810 +
>> +++ gcc/tree-data-ref.c 2018-03-17 10:43:42.
On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 11:45 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> This PR is another regression caused by the removal of the simple_iv
> check in dr_analyze_innermost for BB analysis. Without splitting out
> the step, we weren't able to find an underlying object whose alignment
> could be increased.
>
This PR is another regression caused by the removal of the simple_iv
check in dr_analyze_innermost for BB analysis. Without splitting out
the step, we weren't able to find an underlying object whose alignment
could be increased.
As with PR81635, I think the simple_iv was only handling one special
