[Bug tree-optimization/93721] swapping adjacent scalars could be more efficient

2023-08-04 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93721 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|NEW

[Bug tree-optimization/93721] swapping adjacent scalars could be more efficient

2021-02-13 Thread nok.raven at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93721 Nikita Kniazev changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nok.raven at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/93721] swapping adjacent scalars could be more efficient

2020-02-14 Thread david.bolvansky at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93721 Dávid Bolvanský changed: What|Removed |Added CC||david.bolvansky at gmail dot com ---

[Bug tree-optimization/93721] swapping adjacent scalars could be more efficient

2020-02-13 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93721 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener --- Store merging and bswap should be merged - there's PRs for bswap not working for "stores" (because those are not seeds it works from). And bswap would need to be enhanced to detect more permutation patterns

[Bug tree-optimization/93721] swapping adjacent scalars could be more efficient

2020-02-12 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93721 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3) > Note I will file f0 not producing rolq soon. Filed as PR 93722.

[Bug tree-optimization/93721] swapping adjacent scalars could be more efficient

2020-02-12 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93721 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- For unsigned long: void f(unsigned long *a) { unsigned long t0 = a[0]; unsigned long t1 = a[1]; a[1] = t0; a[0] = t1; } void f0(unsigned long *a) { __uint128_t t0 = ((__uint128_t *)a)[0]; __uint12

[Bug tree-optimization/93721] swapping adjacent scalars could be more efficient

2020-02-12 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93721 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- A simple testcase: void f(unsigned short *a) { unsigned short t0 = a[0]; unsigned short t1 = a[1]; a[1] = t0; a[0] = t1; } CUT Should produce the same as: void f0(unsigned short *a) { uns

[Bug tree-optimization/93721] swapping adjacent scalars could be more efficient

2020-02-12 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93721 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|