On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Xinliang David Li <davi...@google.com> wrote: > Fixed as requested. I don't like the extra newline either, but I will > leave that to Teresa. > > basic3.c:8:foo: note: loop vectorized > > basic3.c:8:foo: note: loop versioned for vectorization because of > possible aliasing > > basic3.c:8:foo: note: loop peeled for vectorization to enhance alignment > > basic3.c:8:foo: note: loop with 7 iterations completely unrolled > > basic3.c:5:foo: note: loop with 7 iterations completely unrolled > > > Is this version ok after testing?
- "Vectorized basic-block\n"); + "Basic block is vectorized\n"); lower case Index: tree-vect-data-refs.c =================================================================== --- tree-vect-data-refs.c (revision 201751) +++ tree-vect-data-refs.c (working copy) @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. #include "tree-scalar-evolution.h" #include "tree-vectorizer.h" #include "diagnostic-core.h" - +#include <stdlib.h> /* Need to include rtl.h, expr.h, etc. for optabs. */ #include "expr.h" #include "optabs.h" @@ -1393,6 +1393,8 @@ vect_enhance_data_refs_alignment (loop_v supportable_dr_alignment = vect_supportable_dr_alignment (dr, true); do_peeling = vector_alignment_reachable_p (dr); + if (getenv("NOPEEL")) + do_peeling = false; if (do_peeling) { if (known_alignment_for_access_p (dr)) unrelated change @@ -261,12 +262,20 @@ dump_loc (int dump_kind, FILE *dfile, so if (dump_kind) { if (LOCATION_LOCUS (loc) > BUILTINS_LOCATION) - fprintf (dfile, "\n%s:%d: note: ", LOCATION_FILE (loc), - LOCATION_LINE (loc)); + { + if (current_function_decl) + fprintf (dfile, "\n%s:%d:%s: note: ", LOCATION_FILE (loc), + LOCATION_LINE (loc), + gimple_decl_printable_name (current_function_decl, 1)); + else + fprintf (dfile, "\n%s:%d: note: ", LOCATION_FILE (loc), + LOCATION_LINE (loc)); + } else if (current_function_decl) - fprintf (dfile, "\n%s:%d: note: ", + fprintf (dfile, "\n%s:%d:%s: note: ", DECL_SOURCE_FILE (current_function_decl), - DECL_SOURCE_LINE (current_function_decl)); + DECL_SOURCE_LINE (current_function_decl), + gimple_decl_printable_name (current_function_decl, 1)); } } please not with this change (I oppose to it). Ok with the change and not committing the hunks above. Thanks, Richard. > thanks, > > David > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 2:45 AM, Richard Biener > <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Xinliang David Li <davi...@google.com> >> wrote: >>> If this is the convention, we should probably have another patch to >>> fix all the existing opt-info messages. >> >> Yes please. >> >> Also ... >> >> >>>>>> b.c:16:A::foo: note: Loop is vectorized >> >> "loop vectorized" >> >>>>>> >>>>>> b.c:16:A::foo: note: Loop is versioned to remove aliases for >>>>>> vectorization >> >> "loop versioned for vectorization because of possible aliasing" >> >>>>>> b.c:16:A::foo: note: Loop is peeled to enhance alignment for >>>>>> vectorization >> >> "loop peeled for vectorization to enhance alignment" >> >>>>>> b.c:16:A::foo: note: Completely unroll loop 6 times >> >> maybe "loop with 6 iterations completely unrolled" >> >>>>>> >>>>>> b.c:12:A::foo: note: Completely unroll loop 6 times >>>>>> >> >> I hate the excessive vertical spacing as well. >> >> Richard. >> >>>>>> Ok after testing? >>>>>> >>>>>> thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> David >>>>