https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43432
Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #5)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Michael Matz from comment #3)
> > > Subject: Bug 43432
> > >
> > > Author: matz
> > > Date: Fri Sep 17 13:26:43 2010
> > > New Revision: 164367
> > >
> > > URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164367
> > > Log:
> > > PR tree-optimization/43432
> > > * tree-vect-data-refs.c (vect_analyze_data_ref_access):
> > > Accept backwards consecutive accesses.
> > > (vect_create_data_ref_ptr): If step is negative generate
> > > decreasing IVs.
> > > * tree-vect-stmts.c (vectorizable_store): Reject negative steps.
> > > (perm_mask_for_reverse, reverse_vec_elements): New functions.
> > > (vectorizable_load): Handle loads with negative steps when easily
> > > possible.
> > >
> > > testsuite/
> > > PR tree-optimization/43432
> > > * lib/target-supports.exp (check_effective_target_vect_perm_byte,
> > > check_effective_target_vect_perm_short): New predicates.
> > > (check_effective_target_vect_perm): Include x86_64.
> > > * gcc.dg/vect/pr43432.c: New test.
> > > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-114.c: Adjust.
> > > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-15.c: Ditto.
> > > * gcc.dg/vect/slp-perm-8.c: Use new predicate.
> > > * gcc.dg/vect/slp-perm-9.c: Ditto.
> > >
> > > Added:
> > > trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr43432.c
> > > Modified:
> > > trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
> > > trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
> > > trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/slp-perm-8.c
> > > trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/slp-perm-9.c
> > > trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-114.c
> > > trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-15.c
> > > trunk/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
> > > trunk/gcc/tree-vect-data-refs.c
> > > trunk/gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c
> >
> > Did this fix it?
>
> Putting in WAITING on a reply
No reply so I'm going to assume that that fixed it.
