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 C93953857C40; Wed, 31 Jan 2024 09:08:35 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C93953857C40
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1706692115;
	bh=pgxeattlAOM4jPDB8kNPnaCrRU2Zb67xeenzTiFk/K8=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=cvdlz/uhomrw/JToo4bVrHxBq7F5kGai9qXCg1AkQM4iBHR90wrj7573iGxsKDxck
	 nBnpgwRSUXXCxtEEc5PNQ97v3LB2VnUdzglDc9XYZRqT3RboQgwukSIQElAEZjPPWv
	 vbOmKUKciYm8JcAUgWpRV5dSfTjMHsyCrJQ+HT/U=
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <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 09:08:31 +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: rguenther at suse dot de
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-mA733fU8bX@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 #17 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024, juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D99395
>=20
> --- 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 repre=
sentations
> > > are finished and then revisit this PR?
> >=20
> > Yes.
>=20
> It seems to be a big refactor work.

It's not too bad if people wouldn't continue to add features not=20
implementing SLP ...

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

I hope to get back to this before stage1 re-opens and will post
another request for testing.  It's really mostly going to be making
sure all paths have coverage which means testing all the various
architectures - I can only easily test x86.  There's a branch
I worked on last year, refs/users/rguenth/heads/vect-force-slp,
which I use to hunt down cases not supporting SLP (it's a bit
overeager to trigger, and it has known holes so it's not really
a good starting point yet for folks to try other archs).=