From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18550 invoked by alias); 5 May 2010 09:02:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 16011 invoked by uid 48); 5 May 2010 09:02:28 -0000 Date: Wed, 05 May 2010 09:02:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100505090228.16008.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug middle-end/43901] [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/pr42196-2.c In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "irar at il dot ibm dot com" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-05/txt/msg00405.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #14 from irar at il dot ibm dot com 2010-05-05 09:02 ------- > It tries to get a _vector_ type of the same size. In theory each > vectorization method can choose whatever vector size suits them > most (as for external defs they need to build up a vector of equivalent > elements anyway). So with AVX we can do V4DF -> V4SF vectorization, > if the double is an external def the vectorization method could choose > to create a vector with double size. But the reasonable default for > now is th force a same-sized vector type as that is what the vectorizer > was tested for until now (well, until I get the followup patch cleaned > up and posted again). OK, thanks for the explanation. > > So yes, if we can return false we should probably do so instead of > asserting (maybe assert that if we are supposed to create vectorized > stmts and thus cannot fail that we indeed have a vector type here). I'll prepare a patch. Thanks, Ira > > Richard. > -- irar at il dot ibm dot com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |irar at il dot ibm dot com |dot org | Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|2010-05-02 10:44:22 |2010-05-05 09:02:26 date| | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43901