On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 3:29 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Richard Biener writes:
>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>> Richard Biener writes:
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> I don't think the problem is the lack of a cap
Richard Biener writes:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> Richard Biener writes:
>>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Richard Sandiford
>>> wrote:
I don't think the problem is the lack of a cap. In the test case we
see that:
1. B is known at co
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Richard Biener writes:
>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>> Richard Biener writes:
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Richard Biener writes:
>> On Thu, Jun 22,
Richard Biener writes:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> Richard Biener writes:
>>> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Richard Sandiford
>>> wrote:
Richard Biener writes:
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> The test ca
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Richard Biener writes:
>> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>> Richard Biener writes:
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> The test case triggered this assert in vect_up
Richard Biener writes:
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> Richard Biener writes:
>>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Richard Sandiford
>>> wrote:
The test case triggered this assert in vect_update_misalignment_for_peel:
gcc_assert (DR_MISA
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> Richard Biener writes:
>>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Richard Sandiford
>>> wrote:
The test case triggered this assert in vect_update_misalignment_for_peel:
>
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Richard Biener writes:
>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>> The test case triggered this assert in vect_update_misalignment_for_peel:
>>>
>>> gcc_assert (DR_MISALIGNMENT (dr) / dr_size ==
>>>
Richard Biener writes:
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> The test case triggered this assert in vect_update_misalignment_for_peel:
>>
>> gcc_assert (DR_MISALIGNMENT (dr) / dr_size ==
>> DR_MISALIGNMENT (dr_peel) / dr_peel_size);
>>
>>
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> The test case triggered this assert in vect_update_misalignment_for_peel:
>>
>> gcc_assert (DR_MISALIGNMENT (dr) / dr_size ==
>> DR_MISALIGNMENT
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> The test case triggered this assert in vect_update_misalignment_for_peel:
>
> gcc_assert (DR_MISALIGNMENT (dr) / dr_size ==
> DR_MISALIGNMENT (dr_peel) / dr_peel_size);
>
> We knew that the two DRs had the
The test case triggered this assert in vect_update_misalignment_for_peel:
gcc_assert (DR_MISALIGNMENT (dr) / dr_size ==
DR_MISALIGNMENT (dr_peel) / dr_peel_size);
We knew that the two DRs had the same misalignment at runtime, but when
considered in isolation, one d
12 matches
Mail list logo