Re: [PATCH] Fix PR80457

2017-04-21 Thread Bill Schmidt
> On Apr 21, 2017, at 5:41 AM, James Greenhalgh > wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 05:38:48PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote: >> Hi, >> >> While investigating a performance issue, I happened to notice that vectorized >> COND_EXPRs were not contributing to the vectorizer cost model. This patch >>

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR80457

2017-04-21 Thread Richard Biener
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:41 PM, James Greenhalgh wrote: > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 05:38:48PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote: >> Hi, >> >> While investigating a performance issue, I happened to notice that vectorized >> COND_EXPRs were not contributing to the vectorizer cost model. This patch >> addr

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR80457

2017-04-21 Thread James Greenhalgh
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 05:38:48PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote: > Hi, > > While investigating a performance issue, I happened to notice that vectorized > COND_EXPRs were not contributing to the vectorizer cost model. This patch > addresses that. > > Bootstrapped and tested on powerpc64le-unknown-l

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR80457

2017-04-20 Thread Richard Biener
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:38 AM, Bill Schmidt wrote: > Hi, > > While investigating a performance issue, I happened to notice that vectorized > COND_EXPRs were not contributing to the vectorizer cost model. This patch > addresses that. > > Bootstrapped and tested on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu.

[PATCH] Fix PR80457

2017-04-18 Thread Bill Schmidt
Hi, While investigating a performance issue, I happened to notice that vectorized COND_EXPRs were not contributing to the vectorizer cost model. This patch addresses that. Bootstrapped and tested on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu. Is this ok for trunk, or should it wait for GCC 8? Thanks, Bill