https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
--- Comment #30 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 9 Feb 2015, belagod at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
>
> --- Comment #29 from Tejas Belagod ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
--- Comment #29 from Tejas Belagod ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #28)
> On Mon, 9 Feb 2015, belagod at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
> >
> > --- Comment #27 from Tejas Belagod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
--- Comment #28 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 9 Feb 2015, belagod at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
>
> --- Comment #27 from Tejas Belagod ---
> We'd want to scalarize this early prefera
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
--- Comment #27 from Tejas Belagod ---
We'd want to scalarize this early preferably in SRA as it gives a chance to
passes like vectorization to vectorize more loops. I checked that
sra-max-scalarization-Osize{-Ospeed} had no effect on scalarizing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
--- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'd say it is a bug in the backend, if you want to override some expansion,
you'd better add some target hook for that, rather than messing up with
MOVE_BY_PIECES and setting it to clearly bogus values.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
--- Comment #25 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5.0 Regression][AArch64] |[5 Regression][AArch64]
