On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Bill Schmidt
wrote:
> On Sep 21, 2017, at 2:37 AM, Richard Biener wrote
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 9:17 PM, Bill Schmidt
>> wrote:
>>> On Sep 20, 2017, at 2:14 PM, Bill Schmidt
>>> wrote:
On Sep 20, 2017, at 3:49 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
On Sep 21, 2017, at 2:37 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 9:17 PM, Bill Schmidt
> wrote:
>> On Sep 20, 2017, at 2:14 PM, Bill Schmidt
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sep 20, 2017, at 3:49 AM, Richard Sandiford
>>> wrote:
But I think this shows up another problem. In th
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 9:17 PM, Bill Schmidt
wrote:
> On Sep 20, 2017, at 2:14 PM, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 20, 2017, at 3:49 AM, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> But I think this shows up another problem. In the vectorised loop,
>>> we have 1 copy of the load and 4 copies of the A
On Sep 20, 2017, at 2:14 PM, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>
> On Sep 20, 2017, at 3:49 AM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>>
>> But I think this shows up another problem. In the vectorised loop,
>> we have 1 copy of the load and 4 copies of the ABS (after unpacking).
>> But vect_analyze_slp_cost_1 is bein
On Sep 20, 2017, at 3:49 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> But I think this shows up another problem. In the vectorised loop,
> we have 1 copy of the load and 4 copies of the ABS (after unpacking).
> But vect_analyze_slp_cost_1 is being called with ncopies_for_cost == 4
> even for the loads. So
On Sep 20, 2017, at 3:49 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Bill Schmidt writes:
>> On Sep 19, 2017, at 4:21 PM, Bill Schmidt
>> wrote:
>>> On Sep 19, 2017, at 3:58 PM, Richard Sandiford
>>> wrote:
Bill Schmidt writes:
> Index: gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c
>
Bill Schmidt writes:
> On Sep 19, 2017, at 4:21 PM, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>> On Sep 19, 2017, at 3:58 PM, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>> Bill Schmidt writes:
Index: gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c
===
--- gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c
On Sep 19, 2017, at 4:21 PM, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>
> On Sep 19, 2017, at 3:58 PM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>>
>> Bill Schmidt writes:
>>> Index: gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c
>>> ===
>>> --- gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c (revision 252760)
>>
On Sep 19, 2017, at 3:58 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Bill Schmidt writes:
>> Index: gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c
>> ===
>> --- gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c(revision 252760)
>> +++ gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c(working copy)
>> @@ -1091,8 +1
Bill Schmidt writes:
> Index: gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c
> ===
> --- gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c (revision 252760)
> +++ gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c (working copy)
> @@ -1091,8 +1091,19 @@ vect_model_load_cost (stmt_vec_info stmt_info, int
>
On 9/19/17 12:38 PM, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/PR82255 identifies a problem in the vector cost model
> where a vectorized load is treated as having the cost of a strided load
> in a case where we will not actually generate a strided load. This is
> simply a mismatch between
Hi,
https://gcc.gnu.org/PR82255 identifies a problem in the vector cost model
where a vectorized load is treated as having the cost of a strided load
in a case where we will not actually generate a strided load. This is
simply a mismatch between the conditions tested in the cost model and
those t
12 matches
Mail list logo