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 37F343858404; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 08:26:24 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 37F343858404
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1709108784;
	bh=jzTOLGH7eLRmkuK8dy/rZFn1VBn/FIwls+Azyhj9VEA=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=AMH3D2IDBsVwHIqmx9Rc6SshyWf5Xa1q/U8gZXjRFe264r47b2kY0vovcW57nmp/d
	 06hVg40cZbF8c5CQUWbAmYbTZT0Y/qm3Hg5whOP13J6YQCFJIeJh1DhvcuJEtFYmsU
	 T1L1AynuToNL+Bcp04qpPDcxYHMDXijZlPSh1Ogk=
From: "liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/112325] Missed vectorization of reduction
 after unrolling
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 08:26:24 +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: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
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-112325-4-fUQIMvY7nY@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-112325-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-112325-4@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=3D112325

--- Comment #16 from Hongtao Liu <liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org> ---

> I'm all for removing the 1/3 for innermost loop handling (in cunroll
> the unrolled loop is then innermost).  I'm more concerned about
> unrolling more than one level which is exactly what's required for
> 454.calculix.

Removing 1/3 for the innermost loop would be sufficient to solve both the i=
ssue
in the PR and x264_pixel_var_8x8 from 525.x264_r. I'll try to benchmark tha=
t.=