[Bug tree-optimization/18412] missed vectorization opportunity due to aliasing issue

2007-06-15 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-16 05:51 --- Fixed on the trunk at revision 125755. Note gcc.dg/vect/vect-106.c is already testing this case so I don't need to add another testcase. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed

[Bug tree-optimization/18412] missed vectorization opportunity due to aliasing issue

2007-05-21 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-22 01:37 --- Mine, this is fixed on the pointer plus branch where aliasing is not confused anymore. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added --

[Bug tree-optimization/18412] missed vectorization opportunity due to aliasing issue

2005-09-10 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-10 18:16 --- This is really a three fold problem. First cobbler needs to be flow sensitive. Second Array references need to be allowed on pointers. Thrid, scanf needs to be marked as only touching the pointers pass

[Bug tree-optimization/18412] missed vectorization opportunity

2004-11-09 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-10 02:21 --- Yes but it is not done right, note that if I do this: #include #include static int size; int main() { int *x; x = (int *)malloc(sizeof(int) * size); for (int i = 0; i < size; i++) x[i] = 7; r

[Bug tree-optimization/18412] missed vectorization opportunity

2004-11-09 Thread giovannibajo at libero dot it
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-11-10 02:18 --- Isn't that what attribute malloc stands for? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18412

[Bug tree-optimization/18412] missed vectorization opportunity

2004-11-09 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-10 01:17 --- The problem is that we don't record that malloc returns a new current unaliasable memory location and that loop im is not moving out because the aliasing info says they can alias when that is not true. -