From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 033ED3858D32; Tue, 5 Sep 2023 09:01:10 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 033ED3858D32 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1693904470; bh=g6WgRjgm7Sj6Izp4SR4PPpcD7oZ07pNLWJ5tQkaRVOY=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=E5fRov9fX1nvrOEJG4u8ohx4MLN6Yh7nuss0zg5Vql/SlJsNfpnblrZCdUOgLyqIU AQ0pfeSVzX0KsW8IcGx35OEOSwanBl/CIotAumWABLl8KUqMk0ZLaCgPM1INMNjGT5 F8w2emwAYBK4aHn8Ej4KsaI6vE4okKNLMnFxotS8= From: "rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/110935] Missed BB reduction vectorization because of missed eliding of a permute Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2023 09:01:07 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.1.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org 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: In-Reply-To: References: 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: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D110935 --- Comment #2 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- If we were going to do this in vect_optimize_slp_pass, I think we'd need a node for the reduction in the pass's internal graph. We could then record that all input layouts have zero cost. What's the reason for not having an SLP node for the reduction? Isn't it a similar kind of sink to a store or constructor?=