On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:50 AM David Malcolm <dmalc...@redhat.com> wrote: > > 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?
I think so. > > + NULL, 0, vect_epilogue); > > (caveat: I'm purely going by symmetry here)
