Hi Richard,
Thanks for the feedback! See comments inline.
On 01/08/2019 16:26, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
On 30/07/2019 13:16, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
Hi Richard,
I believe this is in line with what you were explaining to me earlier. The
one
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
>
>
> On 30/07/2019 13:16, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
> > Hi Richard,
> >
> > I believe this is in line with what you were explaining to me earlier. The
> > one thing I haven't quite done here is the jump around for if there is no
> > prolog pee
On 30/07/2019 13:16, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
Hi Richard,
I believe this is in line with what you were explaining to me earlier.
The one thing I haven't quite done here is the jump around for if there
is no prolog peeling. Though I think skip_vectors introduces the jumping
we need.
Th
Hi Richard,
I believe this is in line with what you were explaining to me earlier.
The one thing I haven't quite done here is the jump around for if there
is no prolog peeling. Though I think skip_vectors introduces the jumping
we need.
The main gist of it is:
1) if '--param vect-epilogues-n
On 19/07/2019 12:35, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jul 2019, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
On 15/07/2019 11:54, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jul 2019, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
On 12/07/2019 11:19, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jul 2019, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
I hav
On Fri, 19 Jul 2019, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
>
>
> On 15/07/2019 11:54, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Jul 2019, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 12/07/2019 11:19, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 11 Jul 2019, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
On 15/07/2019 11:54, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jul 2019, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
On 12/07/2019 11:19, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jul 2019, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
I have code that can split the condition and alias checks in
'vect_loop_versioning'. For this approach
On Mon, 15 Jul 2019, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
>
>
> On 12/07/2019 11:19, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Jul 2019, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
> >
> >
> > I think for code-size reason it would make sense to do it like
> >
> >if (iterations_check_for_lowest_VF ())
> > {
> >
On 12/07/2019 11:19, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jul 2019, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
I think for code-size reason it would make sense to do it like
if (iterations_check_for_lowest_VF ())
{
if (alias_check_for_highest_VF ())
{
vectorized_for_highest_
On Thu, 11 Jul 2019, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
> Hi Richard(s),
>
> I am trying to tackle PR88915 and get GCC to further vectorize the "fallback"
> loop when doing loop versioning as it does when loop versioning is not
> required.
>
> I have a prototype patch that needs further testing, but at
Hi Richard(s),
I am trying to tackle PR88915 and get GCC to further vectorize the
"fallback" loop when doing loop versioning as it does when loop
versioning is not required.
I have a prototype patch that needs further testing, but at first glance
it seems to be achieving the desired outcome.
11 matches
Mail list logo
