Another one sorry, but:
Bin Cheng <bin.ch...@arm.com> writes:
> diff --git a/gcc/tree-vect-loop.c b/gcc/tree-vect-loop.c
> index af874e7..98caa5e 100644
> --- a/gcc/tree-vect-loop.c
> +++ b/gcc/tree-vect-loop.c
> @@ -2214,6 +2214,36 @@ start_over:
> }
> }
>
> + /* During peeling, we need to check if number of loop iterations is
> + enough for both peeled prolog loop and vector loop. This check
> + can be merged along with threshold check of loop versioning, so
> + increase threshold for this case if necessary. */
> + if (LOOP_REQUIRES_VERSIONING (loop_vinfo)
> + && (LOOP_VINFO_PEELING_FOR_GAPS (loop_vinfo)
> + || LOOP_VINFO_PEELING_FOR_NITER (loop_vinfo)))
> + {
> + unsigned niters_th;
> +
> + /* Niters for peeled prolog loop. */
> + if (LOOP_VINFO_PEELING_FOR_ALIGNMENT (loop_vinfo) < 0)
> + {
> + struct data_reference *dr = LOOP_VINFO_UNALIGNED_DR (loop_vinfo);
> + tree vectype = STMT_VINFO_VECTYPE (vinfo_for_stmt (DR_STMT (dr)));
> +
> + niters_th = TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS (vectype) - 1;
> + }
> + else
> + niters_th = LOOP_VINFO_PEELING_FOR_ALIGNMENT (loop_vinfo);
> +
> + /* Niters for at least one iteration of vectorized loop. */
> + niters_th += LOOP_VINFO_VECT_FACTOR (loop_vinfo);
> + /* One additional iteration because of peeling for gap. */
> + if (!LOOP_VINFO_PEELING_FOR_GAPS (loop_vinfo))
> + niters_th++;
is the ! intentional here? It looks like it should adding 1 when
peeling for gaps _is_ needed.
> + if (LOOP_VINFO_COST_MODEL_THRESHOLD (loop_vinfo) < niters_th)
> + LOOP_VINFO_COST_MODEL_THRESHOLD (loop_vinfo) = niters_th;
> + }
> +
> gcc_assert (vectorization_factor
> == (unsigned)LOOP_VINFO_VECT_FACTOR (loop_vinfo));
