Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> writes:
> @@ -5742,8 +5740,14 @@ vectorize_fold_left_reduction (stmt_vec_info stmt_info,
> auto_vec<tree> vec_oprnds0;
> if (slp_node)
> {
> - vect_get_vec_defs (op0, NULL_TREE, stmt_info, &vec_oprnds0, NULL,
> - slp_node);
> + auto_vec<vec<tree> > vec_defs (2);
> + auto_vec<tree> sops(2);
> + sops.quick_push (ops[0]);
> + sops.quick_push (ops[1]);
> + vect_get_slp_defs (sops, slp_node, &vec_defs);
> + vec_oprnds0.safe_splice (vec_defs[1 - reduc_index]);
> + vec_defs[0].release ();
> + vec_defs[1].release ();
> group_size = SLP_TREE_SCALAR_STMTS (slp_node).length ();
> scalar_dest_def_info = SLP_TREE_SCALAR_STMTS (slp_node)[group_size -
> 1];
> }
Ewww. :-) Would be nice if it was easier to do the right thing.
But are you sure we want this for fold-left reductions? The other
operand isn't supposed to be vectorised -- it stays a scalar even
in the vector loop.
Thanks,
Richard
