https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98535
--- Comment #8 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org <rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org>
---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> that is, we end up with
>
> <bb 26> [local count: 73320728]:
> _99 = {j$b_2(D)};
> _100 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<unsigned short>(_99);
> _101 = [vec_duplicate_expr] _100;
> _102 = {j$c_10(D)};
> _103 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<unsigned short>(_102);
> _104 = [vec_duplicate_expr] _103;
> _105 = {j$d_11(D)};
> _106 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<unsigned short>(_105);
> _107 = [vec_duplicate_expr] _106;
> _108 = {j$e_12(D)};
> _109 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<unsigned short>(_108);
> _110 = [vec_duplicate_expr] _109;
> _111 = VEC_PERM_EXPR <_101, _107, { 0, POLY_INT_CST [4, 4], 1,
> POLY_INT_CST [5, 4], 2, POLY_INT_CST [6, 4], ... }>;
> _112 = VEC_PERM_EXPR <_111, _111, { 0, POLY_INT_CST [4, 4], 1,
> POLY_INT_CST [5, 4], 2, POLY_INT_CST [6, 4], ... }>;
> _113 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<vector([4,4]) short int>(_112);
>
> seemingly ignoring _104 and _108 entirely ...
Yeah, that does seem wrong. I'll have a look.
Congrats on getting attachment 50000 btw ;-)
