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 00ECD3858C2D; Wed, 31 Jan 2024 08:27:08 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 00ECD3858C2D
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1706689629;
	bh=ALpOCGe6w/tMsTfpqlsskY36OES/FdwmPaX/QKE1grA=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=JhuojWRgbYlzTpXGGO/pNwN3jGEPOHUSNQdTbBdLkR0JwevExOQjuGA6F6QBhzl1n
	 0oOGiisAgz8uEW9QFelF55VE8O6W8f/hSnj2SIynl+eCwMhV7CAsO2McsbciEnwpv4
	 N3ftq03kFuVwsZJhhR+xHlaSS9fmxynVFgqta/nc=
From: "juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/99395] s116 benchmark of TSVC is vectorized
 by clang and not by gcc
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 08:27:07 +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: 11.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai
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-99395-4-512pu92Dvl@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-99395-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-99395-4@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=3D99395

--- Comment #16 from JuzheZhong <juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai> ---
(In reply to rguenther@suse.de from comment #15)
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024, juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai wrote:
>=20
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D99395
> >=20
> > --- Comment #14 from JuzheZhong <juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai> ---
> > Thanks Richard.
> >=20
> > It seems that we can't fix this issue for now. Is that right ?
> >=20
> > If I understand correctly, do you mean we should wait after SLP represe=
ntations
> > are finished and then revisit this PR?
>=20
> Yes.

It seems to be a big refactor work.

I wonder I can do anything to help with SLP representations ?=