From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 20F693857B89; Fri, 29 Jul 2022 13:21:42 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 20F693857B89
From: "already5chosen at yahoo dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/105617] [12/13 Regression] Slp is maybe too aggressive
 in some/many cases
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2022 13:21:41 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.1.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: already5chosen at yahoo dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 12.2
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-105617-4-3psAjEqF2m@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-105617-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-105617-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2022 13:21:42 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D105617

--- Comment #15 from Michael_S <already5chosen at yahoo dot com> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #14)
> (In reply to Michael_S from comment #12)
> > On related note...
> > One of the historical good features of gcc relatively to other popular
> > compilers was absence of auto-vectorization at -O2.
> > When did you decide to change it and why?
>=20
> Well, people requested it ... so GCC 12 is now having it (with an extra
> eye on code size but this all doesn't work for scalar code vectorization
> which OTOH is thought to almost always benefit code size ...).

"People" is a vague term.
You didn't organize voting among all gcc users, I suppose.
So, count me as "people" who asks to remove it.
Somehow , I suspect that the other one who will vote like me has a middle n=
ame
Benedict.=