On November 4, 2019 4:30:57 PM GMT+01:00, Joel Hutton
wrote:
>First copy bounced from mailing list.
> > > On 30/10/2019 13:49, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > >>
>> > >> * expr.c (store_constructor): Add case for constructor
>of
> > > vectors.
> > > > Why do you need this? The vectorizer
First copy bounced from mailing list.
> > On 30/10/2019 13:49, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >>
> > >> * expr.c (store_constructor): Add case for constructor of
> > vectors.
> > > Why do you need this? The vectorizer already creates such
CTORs. Any
> > > testcase that you can show
On Fri, 1 Nov 2019, Joel Hutton wrote:
> On 30/10/2019 13:49, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>
> >> * expr.c (store_constructor): Add case for constructor of
> vectors.
> > Why do you need this? The vectorizer already creates such CTORs. Any
> > testcase that you can show?
> >
> > type
On 30/10/2019 13:49, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> * expr.c (store_constructor): Add case for constructor of
vectors.
> Why do you need this? The vectorizer already creates such CTORs. Any
> testcase that you can show?
>
> typedef long v2di __attribute__((vector_size(16)));
> v2di
On 30/10/2019 14:51, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Oct 2019, Joel Hutton wrote:
>
>> On 30/10/2019 13:49, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> Why do you need this? The vectorizer already creates such CTORs. Any
>>> testcase that you can show?
>> typedef long v2di __attribute__((vector_size(16)));
>>
On Wed, 30 Oct 2019, Joel Hutton wrote:
> On 30/10/2019 13:49, Richard Biener wrote:
> > Why do you need this? The vectorizer already creates such CTORs. Any
> > testcase that you can show?
>
> typedef long v2di __attribute__((vector_size(16)));
> v2di v;
> void
> foo()
> {
> v = (v2di){v[1]
On 30/10/2019 13:49, Richard Biener wrote:
> Why do you need this? The vectorizer already creates such CTORs. Any
> testcase that you can show?
typedef long v2di __attribute__((vector_size(16)));
v2di v;
void
foo()
{
v = (v2di){v[1], v[0]};
}
>> * tree-vect-slp.c (vect_analyze_slp
On Wed, 30 Oct 2019, Joel Hutton wrote:
> On 15/10/2019 13:11, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> > You miss to check that CONSTRUCTOR_NELTS == TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS
> >> > (we can have omitted trailing zeros).
> >
> > ^^^
> >
> > I don't see this being handled? You give up on non-SSA names
> > b
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019, Joel Hutton wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> Thanks for your help, I've reworked my SLP RFC based on your feedback.
> > I think a better place for the loop searching for CONSTRUCTORs is
> > vect_slp_analyze_bb_1 where I'd put it before the check you remove,
> > and I'd simply appe
