From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 46064 invoked by alias); 25 Aug 2015 10:05:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 46012 invoked by uid 55); 25 Aug 2015 10:05:45 -0000 From: "rguenther at suse dot de" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/67323] Use non-unit stride loads by preference when applicable Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 10:05:00 -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: 6.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: rguenth 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: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2015-08/txt/msg01749.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67323 --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 25 Aug 2015, michael.collison at linaro dot org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67323 > > --- Comment #2 from Michael Collison --- > Richard, > > Should I create a test case that fails until you resolve this in GCC 6? If you can provide one that I can check in together with a fix that would be nice. Having it in the tree now and FAILing isn't according to our policies. > On 08/25/2015 02:14 AM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67323 > > > > Richard Biener changed: > > > > What |Removed |Added > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED > > Last reconfirmed| |2015-08-25 > > CC|richard.guenther at gmail dot com |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org > > Depends on| |66721 > > Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org > > Ever confirmed|0 |1 > > > > --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener --- > > Confirmed. We go down the SLP path here because the vectorizer thinks that > > SLP is always cheaper than using interleaving (which generally is true > > if there were not targets which can do the load plus interleave with > > load-lanes ...). > > > > I think this may be a regression as well because I enhanced SLP to apply > > to way more cases. > > > > Note that my plan is to make the vectorizer consider both (well, not really, > > but this bug shows I maybe should try), SLP and non-SLP, and evaluate based > > on costs which route to go. > > > > > > Referenced Bugs: > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66721 > > [Bug 66721] [6 regression] gcc.target/i386/pr61403.c FAILs > >