On Wed, 2 Dec 2015, Alan Lawrence wrote: > On 27/11/15 14:13, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > The following fixes the excessive peeling for gaps we do when doing > > SLP now that I removed most of the restrictions on having gaps in > > the first place. > > > > This should make low-trip vectorized loops more efficient (sth > > also the combine-epilogue-with-vectorized-body-by-masking patches > > claim to do). > > > > Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied to trunk. > > > > Richard. > > > > 2015-11-27 Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> > > > > PR tree-optimization/68559 > > * tree-vect-data-refs.c (vect_analyze_group_access_1): Move > > peeling for gap checks ... > > * tree-vect-stmts.c (vectorizable_load): ... here and relax > > for SLP. > > * tree-vect-loop.c (vect_analyze_loop_2): Re-set > > LOOP_VINFO_PEELING_FOR_GAPS before re-trying without SLP. > > > > * gcc.dg/vect/slp-perm-4.c: Adjust again. > > * gcc.dg/vect/pr45752.c: Likewise. > > Since this, we have > > FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr45752.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects scan-tree-dump-times vect > "gaps requires scalar epilogue loop" 0 > FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr45752.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "gaps requires scalar > epilogue loop" 0 > > on aarch64 platforms (aarch64-none-linux-gnu, aarch64-none-elf, > aarch64_be-none-elf).
Can you open a bug and attach -details vectorizer dumps? Richard.
