On Tue, 2019-06-25 at 10:16 +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> Hi.
>
> That's a thinko that's pre-approved by Richi.
>
> Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression
> tests.
>
> Thanks,
> Martin
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> 2019-06-24 Martin Liska <mli...@suse.cz>
>
> PR tree-optimization/90973
> * tree-vect-loop.c (vect_get_known_peeling_cost): Sum retval
> of prologue and epilogue.
> ---
> gcc/tree-vect-loop.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> diff --git a/gcc/tree-vect-loop.c b/gcc/tree-vect-loop.c
> index d3facf67bf9..489bee65397 100644
> --- a/gcc/tree-vect-loop.c
> +++ b/gcc/tree-vect-loop.c
> @@ -3405,8 +3405,8 @@ vect_get_known_peeling_cost (loop_vec_info loop_vinfo,
> int peel_iters_prologue,
> iterations are unknown, count a taken branch per peeled loop. */
> retval = record_stmt_cost (prologue_cost_vec, 1, cond_branch_taken,
> NULL, 0, vect_prologue);
> - retval = record_stmt_cost (prologue_cost_vec, 1, cond_branch_taken,
> - NULL, 0, vect_epilogue);
> + retval += record_stmt_cost (prologue_cost_vec, 1, cond_branch_taken,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Should this be epilogue_cost_vec?
> + NULL, 0, vect_epilogue);
(caveat: I'm purely going by symmetry here)
