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 CACBE3857716; Sun, 14 May 2023 10:01:09 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org CACBE3857716
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1684058469;
	bh=zl9tK+UMdOSPqXnaQbI8l5WmHrPBx01+kI8ThJL006k=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=xXz585eHWcktyqz8ATfQtVMH0uZhEQOWNChXFPQvUX3feV7GufQzFaH7pHtxlP+ga
	 EWRW+KqWv+0JFgvcHSqPS/tcxlHhlPpeiumkDJI1vSDVNM62ppKNvFKombKrG8Opft
	 sp3b4K1Eask3QFoUOipg8ocTeKhGhWZLmuFur5fA=
From: "hubicka at ucw dot cz" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/109849] suboptimal code for vector walking loop
Date: Sun, 14 May 2023 10:01:09 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: hubicka at ucw dot cz
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-109849-4-K4eyZYxN2X@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-109849-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-109849-4@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
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D109849

--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz> ---
> Actually why didn't we copy the loop header in the first place?
Because it is considered to be do-while loop already (thanks to
the in-loop conitional, do_while_loop_p is happy).=