https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67323

--- Comment #4 from Michael Collison <michael.collison at linaro dot org> ---
Hi Richard,

No I do not have a fix now. Thanks for the info on the policy.

On 08/25/2015 03:05 AM, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
> 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
>>

Reply via email to