Re: [PATCH] Fix PR49518

2011-08-07 Thread H.J. Lu
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:35 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Tue, 5 Jul 2011, Ira Rosen wrote: > >> Richard Guenther wrote on 04/07/2011 03:30:59 PM: >> > > >> > > Richard Guenther wrote on 04/07/2011 02:38:50 PM: >> > > >> > > > Handling of negative steps broke one of the many asserts in >> > >

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR49518

2011-07-05 Thread Ira Rosen
Richard Guenther wrote on 05/07/2011 12:35:24 PM: > > On Tue, 5 Jul 2011, Ira Rosen wrote: > > > Richard Guenther wrote on 04/07/2011 03:30:59 PM: > > > > > > > > Richard Guenther wrote on 04/07/2011 02:38:50 PM: > > > > > > > > > Handling of negative steps broke one of the many asserts in >

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR49518

2011-07-05 Thread Richard Guenther
On Tue, 5 Jul 2011, Ira Rosen wrote: > Richard Guenther wrote on 04/07/2011 03:30:59 PM: > > > > > > Richard Guenther wrote on 04/07/2011 02:38:50 PM: > > > > > > > Handling of negative steps broke one of the many asserts in > > > > the vectorizer. The following patch drops one that I can't > >

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR49518

2011-07-04 Thread Ira Rosen
Richard Guenther wrote on 04/07/2011 03:30:59 PM: > > > > Richard Guenther wrote on 04/07/2011 02:38:50 PM: > > > > > Handling of negative steps broke one of the many asserts in > > > the vectorizer. The following patch drops one that I can't > > > make sense of. I think all asserts need comm

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR49518

2011-07-04 Thread Richard Guenther
On Mon, 4 Jul 2011, Ira Rosen wrote: > > > Richard Guenther wrote on 04/07/2011 02:38:50 PM: > > > Handling of negative steps broke one of the many asserts in > > the vectorizer. The following patch drops one that I can't > > make sense of. I think all asserts need comments - especially > >

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR49518

2011-07-04 Thread Ira Rosen
Richard Guenther wrote on 04/07/2011 02:38:50 PM: > Handling of negative steps broke one of the many asserts in > the vectorizer. The following patch drops one that I can't > make sense of. I think all asserts need comments - especially > this one would, as I can't see why using vf is correct

[PATCH] Fix PR49518

2011-07-04 Thread Richard Guenther
Handling of negative steps broke one of the many asserts in the vectorizer. The following patch drops one that I can't make sense of. I think all asserts need comments - especially this one would, as I can't see why using vf is correct to test against and not nelements (and why <= vf and not < v