public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "linkw at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/110740] [14 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/p9-vec-length-epil-1.c
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2023 08:53:05 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-110740-4-j1EeVDc4jl@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-110740-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110740
Kewen Lin <linkw at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org,
| |rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Kewen Lin <linkw at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Previously function vect_update_epilogue_niters has some code special-casing
the single scalar iteration epilogue:
-static bool
-vect_update_epilogue_niters (loop_vec_info epilogue_vinfo,
- unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT const_niters)
-{
- /* Avoid wrap-around when computing const_niters - 1. Also reject
- using an epilogue loop for a single scalar iteration, even if
- we could in principle implement that using partial vectors. */
- unsigned int gap_niters = LOOP_VINFO_PEELING_FOR_GAPS (epilogue_vinfo);
- if (const_niters <= gap_niters + 1)
- return false;
It's enabled without any costing consideration before, it sounds quite
reasonable so I think we still want it?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-07-20 8:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-07-19 13:39 [Bug target/110740] New: " seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-07-20 5:26 ` [Bug target/110740] " linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-07-20 8:53 ` linkw at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2023-07-20 8:55 ` linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-07-20 9:02 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-07-20 9:41 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-07-20 10:10 ` linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-07-24 6:21 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-08-24 1:59 ` linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
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=bug-110740-4-j1EeVDc4jl@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
--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).