https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103797
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103797
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103797
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103797
--- Comment #18 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8f921393e339090566c1589d81009caa954de90d
commit r12-6113-g8f921393e339090566c1589d81009caa954de90d
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103797
--- Comment #17 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to hubicka from comment #16)
> > >
> > > It could be done, but I was under impression that the sequence to load
> > > 1.0f
> > > into topmost elements nullifies the benefit of operation to divide
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103797
--- Comment #16 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz ---
> >
> > It could be done, but I was under impression that the sequence to load 1.0f
> > into topmost elements nullifies the benefit of operation to divide two
>
> Sure, so perhaps we shoul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103797
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #12)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> > At least on your short testcase clang doesn't use divps either.
> > We do support mulv2sf3, addv2sf3 etc. but no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103797
--- Comment #14 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #13)
> Created attachment 52051 [details]
> Patch that implements v2sf division
This patch also enables vectorization of the testcase from Comment #7. Using
-ffast-math,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103797
--- Comment #13 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 52051
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52051&action=edit
Patch that implements v2sf division
Please try the attached patch, for the following testcase:
--cut here--
fl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103797
--- Comment #12 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> At least on your short testcase clang doesn't use divps either.
> We do support mulv2sf3, addv2sf3 etc. but not divv2sf3 I bet because with
> TARGET_MMX_WITH_SSE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103797
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka ---
Aha, I did not noticed that we need special patterns (I extecpted this is
problem to solve in machine independent code). So I guess we have
1) SLP should vectorize the 3 accesses with -ffast-math to only on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103797
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103797
--- Comment #9 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz ---
> recip pass happens after vectorization
> I don't know/understand why though.
Yep, I suppose we want to either special case this in vectorizer or make
it earlier... I also wonder why t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103797
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #7)
> Having this however I do not see slp analyzing the divide in the original
> code at all.
recip pass happens after vectorization
I don't know/understand why t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103797
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103797
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
You may try exporting GIMPLE IL that can be consumed with -fgimple.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103797
--- Comment #5 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz ---
Created attachment 52042
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52042&action=edit
b.slp1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103797
--- Comment #4 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz ---
> -E and remove not needed code.
>
> > The
> > declaratoins are quite convoluted, but the function is well isolated and
> > easy to inspect from full one...
>
> Do we speak about:
> https:/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103797
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to hubicka from comment #2)
> > Can you please attach a reduced test-case?
> Do you know how to produce one with a reasonable effort?
-E and remove not needed code.
> The
> declaratoins are quite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103797
--- Comment #2 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz ---
> Can you please attach a reduced test-case?
Do you know how to produce one with a reasonable effort? The
declaratoins are quite convoluted, but the function is well isolated and
easy to ins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103797
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103797
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Severity|
22 matches
Mail list logo
