https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66285
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
I thought that parallelizing vectorized loops is harder (you eventually get
extra prologue and epliogue loops, etc).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66285
--- Comment #8 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
For example par-4.c, if we use the same patch to interchange the passes, we
get:
When not parallelizing, all loops get vectorized:
...
parloops_factor: 0, index_type: int:
vectorized: 1, parallel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66285
--- Comment #7 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> I thought that parallelizing vectorized loops is harder (you eventually get
> extra prologue and epliogue loops, etc).
Another example, par-4.c:
...
i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66285
--- Comment #5 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35626
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35626&action=edit
par-2.c.132t.vect
par-2.c.132t.vect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66285
--- Comment #4 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35625
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35625&action=edit
par-2.c.131t.ifcvt
par-2.c.131t.ifcvt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66285
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35624
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35624&action=edit
par-2.c.130t.ompexpssa
par-2.c.130t.ompexpssa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66285
--- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35623
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35623&action=edit
par-2.c.129t.parloops
For -DINDEX_TYPE=int, par-2.c.129t.parloops
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66285
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Commen
