https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98138
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
So the expected vectorization builds vectors
{ tmp[0][0], tmp[1][0], tmp[2][0], tmp[3][0] }
that's not SLP, SLP tries to build the
{ tmp[i][0], tmp[i][1], tmp[i][2], tmp[i][3] }
vector and "succeeds" - the SLP tree turns out to be
highly inefficient though. So for the stores your desire
is to see an interleaving scheme with VF 4 (the number of
iterations). But interleaving fails because it would require
a VF of 16 and there are not enough iteration in the loop.
The classical SLP scheme degenerates (also due to the plus/minus
mixed ops) to uniform vectors as we venture beyond the a{0,2} {+,-} a{1,3}
expression.
Starting SLP discovery from the grouped loads would get things going
up to the above same expression.
So not sure what's the best approach to this case. The testcase
can be simplified still showing the SLP discovery issue:
extern void test(unsigned int t[4][4]);
void foo(int *p1, int i1, int *p2, int i2)
{
unsigned int tmp[4][4];
unsigned int a0, a1, a2, a3;
for (int i = 0; i < 4; i++, p1 += i1, p2 += i2) {
a0 = (p1[0] - p2[0]);
a1 = (p1[1] - p2[1]);
a2 = (p1[2] - p2[2]);
a3 = (p1[3] - p2[3]);
int t0 = a0 + a1;
int t1 = a0 - a1;
int t2 = a2 + a3;
int t3 = a2 - a3;
tmp[i][0] = t0 + t2;
tmp[i][2] = t0 - t2;
tmp[i][1] = t1 + t3;
tmp[i][3] = t1 - t3;
}
test(tmp);
}
So it's basically SLP discovery degenerating to an interleaving scheme
on the load side but not actually "implementing" it.
