>> yes, that '50' should be a parameter somewhere in loop_vec_info.
>
> I see the broken code is still in aarch64.c - can someone please test
> & apply the above
> patch?
I believe this is on Alan's todo list.
Ramana
>
> Thanks,
> Richard.
>
>> Richard.
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> James
>>>
>>> ---
>>> [
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 5:14 PM, James Greenhalgh
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 04:20:06AM +0100, Ekanathan, Saravanan wrote:
>>> (I had sent this mail to gcc-help a week ago. Not sure, all GCC developers
>>> are subscribed to gcc-help,
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 5:14 PM, James Greenhalgh
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 04:20:06AM +0100, Ekanathan, Saravanan wrote:
>> (I had sent this mail to gcc-help a week ago. Not sure, all GCC developers
>> are subscribed to gcc-help, so re-sending to GCC development mailing list)
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>
On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 04:20:06AM +0100, Ekanathan, Saravanan wrote:
> (I had sent this mail to gcc-help a week ago. Not sure, all GCC developers
> are subscribed to gcc-help, so re-sending to GCC development mailing list)
>
> Hi,
>
> This looks like a missed vectorization opportunity for one of t
(I had sent this mail to gcc-help a week ago. Not sure, all GCC developers are
subscribed to gcc-help, so re-sending to GCC development mailing list)
Hi,
This looks like a missed vectorization opportunity for one of the 'Fortran' hot
loops in cactusADM (CPU2006 benchmark) when compiled with "-mcp
