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 1244C3858C41; Tue,  2 Jan 2024 08:58:34 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 1244C3858C41
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1704185915;
	bh=oKIZ8MBv5c+f5YiA5chYgtgN5IXtJlL2C7Yjj2B2hd8=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=Ud3i6yl9geWCoJi87o1msWScP+XzjYoDapWZQ3GWkVrw12xVnu7W1QhHfpLPOrd1w
	 sXne4cWLNz8y66zamuOp+tLxlxbQ3VEJFB7u1nYyULTY2VkZrYv9FBhaP5qFPKxKQX
	 xt5g7CscVOW7JWMUrebzgPB/v+QLto/4KpRTPRQw=
From: "juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/112457] Possible better vectorization of
 different reduction min/max reduction
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2024 08:58:33 +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: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai
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: attachments.created
Message-ID: <bug-112457-4-8gSBbI1U9b@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-112457-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-112457-4@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=3D112457

--- Comment #3 from JuzheZhong <juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai> ---
Created attachment 56973
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=3D56973&action=3Dedit
min/max reduction approach with index

Hi, Richi.

I have watch all PPT/video of 2023 llvm development meeting.

Turns out they already have a feasible solution/approach to support min/max
reduction with index.

Is it Ok that I support it by following the LLVM approach ?

The attachment is the PPT of LLVM development meeting that mentioned min/max
reduction with index.

Thanks.=