https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101097
--- Comment #13 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #12)
> (In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #11)
> > FWIW, you could try something similar to how aarch64 handles this
> > for Advanced SIMD, with a combination
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101097
--- Comment #12 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #11)
> FWIW, you could try something similar to how aarch64 handles this
> for Advanced SIMD, with a combination of:
>
> - TARGET_VECTORIZE_AUTOVECTORIZE_VECTOR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101097
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101097
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #8)
> (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #6)
> >
> > I just to want to classify the test is used to test another optimization
> > which rely on either loop vectori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101097
--- Comment #9 from Hongtao.liu ---
> As said - a lot of work, sth that might be easier when we got rid of the
> SLP vs. non-SLP duality.
Understand.
I guess we will encounter more redundant packs and unpacks, considering that we
have supporte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101097
--- Comment #8 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #6)
>
> I just to want to classify the test is used to test another optimization
> which rely on either loop vectorization or slp. it means it's ok to add
> unroll pragma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101097
--- Comment #7 from Hongtao.liu ---
> I just to want to classify the test is used to test another optimization
> which rely on either loop vectorization or slp. it means it's ok to add
> unroll pragma here.
clarify
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101097
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3)
> > Created attachment 51031 [details]
> > Pack/unpack patterns for 8-byte vectors
> >
> > FYI, this patch adds pack/un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101097
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3)
> Created attachment 51031 [details]
> Pack/unpack patterns for 8-byte vectors
>
> FYI, this patch adds pack/unpack patterns for 8-byte vectors. It will fail:
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101097
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #2)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> > Hmm, so the difference is that we use loop vect for 'foo' but fail to do
> > that for 'bar' and BB vect succeeds.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101097
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 51031
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51031&action=edit
Pack/unpack patterns for 8-byte vectors
FYI, this patch adds pack/unpack patterns for 8-byte vectors. It will fa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101097
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101097
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||53947
Keywords|
13 matches
Mail list logo
