https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85057
--- Comment #7 from Moritz Kreutzer ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> I didn't try to see why but I guess "bad luck" ;) It probably makes
> the first access a pointer one as well.
Okay, in that case I'd rather call it "good luc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85057
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||65206
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85057
--- Comment #5 from Moritz Kreutzer ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> The issue lies in dependence analysis which faces
>
> _21 = (sizetype) i_24;
> _22 = _21 * 8;
> _2 = &a + _22;
> _13 = MEM[(const Type_t &)&a][i_24].v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85057
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85057
--- Comment #3 from Moritz Kreutzer ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Attachment is missing.
Thanks! I could swear that I uploaded the attachment in the first place, but it
seems like I forgot to click the button to actually att
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85057
--- Comment #2 from Moritz Kreutzer ---
Created attachment 43752
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43752&action=edit
Example which GCC fails to vectorize
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85057
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
