public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/36630] [4.3/4.4 Regression] ICE in vect_update_ivs_after_vectorizer
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:11:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080828150946.26218.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-36630-87@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>



------- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-08-28 15:09 -------
I still think that handling NULL from evolution_part_in_loop_num is the
correct thing to do.  Even if you need to move this check to the analysis
phase.

The interesting thing is that the access function during
vect_analyze_scalar_cycles_1 is

{2, +, 1}_1

which is because after the vectorized part of the loop the prologue
remains which has a non-constant evolution start.

So with the reasoning that you analyzed the access function of the
original loop properly you can probably strip the conversion that
confuses you at just vect_update_ivs_after_vectorizer.  (Or store
the relevant information during analysis where the evolution is
still simple enough)

This would fix the ICE, but I wonder if it may cause wrong code because
of mismatched types somehow. 


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36630


  parent reply	other threads:[~2008-08-28 15:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-06-25 12:48 [Bug tree-optimization/36630] New: " jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-06-25 12:48 ` [Bug tree-optimization/36630] " jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-06-25 14:28 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-06-26 11:58 ` irar at il dot ibm dot com
2008-06-26 12:12 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2008-06-26 18:34 ` irar at il dot ibm dot com
2008-07-10 14:19 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-07-16  6:20 ` irar at il dot ibm dot com
2008-07-18 16:53 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-08-27 22:13 ` jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-08-28 15:11 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org [this message]
2008-09-03 10:44 ` irar at il dot ibm dot com
2008-09-03 21:04 ` spop at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-09-07  7:16 ` irar at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-09-07 10:08 ` irar at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-09-07 11:06 ` irar at il dot ibm dot com
2008-09-08  7:46 ` irar at il dot ibm dot com

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20080828150946.26218.qmail@sourceware.org \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).