[Bug target/109632] Inefficient codegen when complex numbers are emulated with structs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109632 --- Comment #12 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- The patch in comment 11 is just a related spot improvement. The PR itself is still unfixed.

[Bug target/109632] Inefficient codegen when complex numbers are emulated with structs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109632 --- Comment #11 from CVS Commits --- The trunk branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b096a6ebe9d9f9fed4c105f6555f724eb32af95c commit r14-1131-gb096a6ebe9d9f9fed4c105f6555f724eb32af95c Author: Richard Sandiford D

[Bug target/109632] Inefficient codegen when complex numbers are emulated with structs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109632 --- Comment #10 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- After prototyping this further, I no longer think that lowering at the gimple level is the best answer. (I should have listened to Richi.) Although it works, its major drawback is that it's

[Bug target/109632] Inefficient codegen when complex numbers are emulated with structs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109632 --- Comment #9 from Tamar Christina --- Thank you!

[Bug target/109632] Inefficient codegen when complex numbers are emulated with structs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109632 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirm

[Bug target/109632] Inefficient codegen when complex numbers are emulated with structs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109632 --- Comment #7 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Thinking more about it, it would probably be better to defer the split until around lower_complex time, after IPA (especially inlining), NRV and tail-recursion. Doing it there should also mak

[Bug target/109632] Inefficient codegen when complex numbers are emulated with structs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109632 --- Comment #6 from Tamar Christina --- That's an interesting approach, I think it would also fix https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109391 would it not? Since the int16x8x3_t return would be "scalarized" avoiding the bad expansion?

[Bug target/109632] Inefficient codegen when complex numbers are emulated with structs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109632 --- Comment #5 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 54941 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54941&action=edit hacky proof-of-concept patch This is a very hacky proof of concept patch. Don't try it on anyt

[Bug target/109632] Inefficient codegen when complex numbers are emulated with structs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109632 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.or

[Bug target/109632] Inefficient codegen when complex numbers are emulated with structs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109632 --- Comment #3 from Tamar Christina --- note that even if we can't stop SLP, we should be able to generate as efficient code by being creative about the instruction selection, that's why I marked it as a target bug :)

[Bug target/109632] Inefficient codegen when complex numbers are emulated with structs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109632 --- Comment #2 from Tamar Christina --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1) > Well, the usual unknown ABI boundary at function entry/exit. Yes but LLVM gets it right, so should be a solve able computer science problem. :) Note that th

[Bug target/109632] Inefficient codegen when complex numbers are emulated with structs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109632 --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener --- Well, the usual unknown ABI boundary at function entry/exit.