Jakub Jelinek wrote on 17/04/2011 05:26:14 PM:
>
> On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 11:30:31AM +0300, Ira Rosen wrote:
> > We already have this check in vect_build_slp_tree(). It didn't work for
the
> > testcase because it doesn't take into account the type of definition. I
> > agree that it's better to
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 11:30:31AM +0300, Ira Rosen wrote:
> We already have this check in vect_build_slp_tree(). It didn't work for the
> testcase because it doesn't take into account the type of definition. I
> agree that it's better to move it here and base the vector/scalar decision
> on it, b
Jakub Jelinek wrote on 16/04/2011 09:16:23 AM:
>
> Hi!
>
> As the attached testcase shows, while the current detection of what
> shifts are by scalar and what shifts are by vector shift count
> may work well for loop vectorizer (vect_internal_def being vector
> shift, vect_external_def or vect_c
Hi!
As the attached testcase shows, while the current detection of what
shifts are by scalar and what shifts are by vector shift count
may work well for loop vectorizer (vect_internal_def being vector
shift, vect_external_def or vect_constant_def scalar shift),
it is incorrect for SLP, where vect_
