https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105219
--- Comment #15 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org <rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org>
---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #14)
> diff --git a/gcc/tree-vect-loop.cc b/gcc/tree-vect-loop.cc
> index d7bc34636bd..3b63ab7b669 100644
> --- a/gcc/tree-vect-loop.cc
> +++ b/gcc/tree-vect-loop.cc
> @@ -9977,7 +9981,7 @@ vect_transform_loop (loop_vec_info loop_vinfo, gimple
> *loop_vectorized_call)
> lowest_vf) - 1
> : wi::udiv_floor (loop->nb_iterations_upper_bound +
> bias_for_lowest,
> lowest_vf) - 1);
> - if (main_vinfo)
> + if (main_vinfo && !main_vinfo->peeling_for_alignment)
> {
> unsigned int bound;
> poly_uint64 main_iters
It might be better to add the maximum peeling amount to main_iters.
Maybe you'd prefer this anyway for GCC 12 though.
I wonder if there's a similar problem for peeling for gaps,
in cases where the epilogue doesn't need the same peeling.
