From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 04DF03858C27; Thu, 12 Jan 2023 09:12:07 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 04DF03858C27 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1673514728; bh=CXidhFC8mauT30NdzlolBu098fnr/0bq24HS2ll45vM=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=p5ccv4vRVnxs/Vz0JffI5Bk1lthCjVb39T1n52AZcK1C5UxBR1ou5BKbXFCMQ3m/Z COZ0Yna1ogXoF5w2E6ORMwfjLos9bmxrzEiA+CsBap2XB0Y2TYVGAus1xv1gIEUZ01 Pj+P8HqdxfS0xMkxT/BBhjIQGIKy1PAH+dILyOmI= From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/99412] s352 benchmark of TSVC is vectorized by clang and not by gcc Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2023 09:12:06 +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: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 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: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D99412 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #2) > This is also seen with zen4 comparing gcc and aocc. (about 2.3 times > differnece) Disabling @@ -6877,7 +6887,7 @@ reassociate_bb (basic_block bb) binary op are chosen wisely. */ int len =3D ops.length (); if (len >=3D 3) swap_ops_for_binary_stmt (ops, len - 3, stmt); will naturally create the reduction chain (or leave it in place) given the current rank computation. We do have (somewhat) robust fallback from reduction chain to reduction (via reduction path support), so I think this change would be OK.=