https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67323
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de <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 <michael.collison at linaro dot org> --- > 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 <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 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 <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > > 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 > >
