https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101908
--- Comment #42 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> --- On Tue, 15 Mar 2022, crazylht at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101908 > > --- Comment #41 from Hongtao.liu <crazylht at gmail dot com> --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #22) > > (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #21) > > > Now we have SLP node available in vector cost hook, maybe we can do sth in > > > cost model to prevent vectorization when node's definition from big-size > > > parameter. > > > > Note we vectorize a load here for which we do not pass down an SLP node. > > But of course there's the stmt-info one could look at - but the issue > > is that for SLP that doesn't tell you which part of the variable is > > accessed. > > Also even if we were to pass down the SLP node we do not know exactly how > > it is going to vectorize - but sure, we could play with some heuristics > Then, we can't get exact offset between load address and store address. Yes, at the moment this info is not present. I do have ideas how to refactor things to make the exact generated stores and loads available but it will be quite some work to do that. But sure for costing we should know exactly what is going to be generated (at GIMPLE level), we shouldn't have to second-guess.
