On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 11:13 AM Richard Sandiford <richard.sandif...@arm.com> wrote: > > vectorizable_operation returned false for codes that are handled by > vectorizable_shift, but only after it had already done a lot of work. > Checking earlier should be more efficient and avoid polluting the logs > with duplicate info. > > Also, there was no such early-out for comparisons or COND_EXPRs. > Fixing that avoids a false scan-tree-dump hit with a later patch.
OK. > > 2019-11-29 Richard Sandiford <richard.sandif...@arm.com> > > gcc/ > * tree-vect-stmts.c (vectorizable_operation): Punt early > on codes that are handled elsewhere. > > Index: gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c > =================================================================== > --- gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c 2019-11-29 08:28:12.015121876 +0000 > +++ gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c 2019-11-29 09:11:24.553108756 +0000 > @@ -5999,6 +5999,21 @@ vectorizable_operation (stmt_vec_info st > > orig_code = code = gimple_assign_rhs_code (stmt); > > + /* Shifts are handled in vectorizable_shift. */ > + if (code == LSHIFT_EXPR > + || code == RSHIFT_EXPR > + || code == LROTATE_EXPR > + || code == RROTATE_EXPR) > + return false; > + > + /* Comparisons are handled in vectorizable_comparison. */ > + if (TREE_CODE_CLASS (code) == tcc_comparison) > + return false; > + > + /* Conditions are handled in vectorizable_condition. */ > + if (code == COND_EXPR) > + return false; > + > /* For pointer addition and subtraction, we should use the normal > plus and minus for the vector operation. */ > if (code == POINTER_PLUS_EXPR) > @@ -6123,11 +6138,6 @@ vectorizable_operation (stmt_vec_info st > > gcc_assert (ncopies >= 1); > > - /* Shifts are handled in vectorizable_shift (). */ > - if (code == LSHIFT_EXPR || code == RSHIFT_EXPR || code == LROTATE_EXPR > - || code == RROTATE_EXPR) > - return false; > - > /* Supportable by target? */ > > vec_mode = TYPE_MODE (vectype);
