> >
> > I noticed loop-doloop.c use _int version and likely_max, maybe you want
> > that here?
> >
> > est_niter = get_estimated_loop_iterations_int (loop);
> > if (est_niter == -1)
> > est_niter = get_likely_max_loop_iterations_int (loop)
>
> I think that are two different things - ge
On Tue, 24 Aug 2021, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2021, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>
> > Hi Richi,
> >
> > on 2021/8/23 ??10:33, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > > This removes --param vect-inner-loop-cost-factor in favor of looking
> > > at the estimated number of iterations of the inn
On Tue, 24 Aug 2021, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> Hi Richi,
>
> on 2021/8/23 ??10:33, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > This removes --param vect-inner-loop-cost-factor in favor of looking
> > at the estimated number of iterations of the inner loop
> > when available and otherwise just assumes a si
Hi Richi,
on 2021/8/23 下午10:33, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
> This removes --param vect-inner-loop-cost-factor in favor of looking
> at the estimated number of iterations of the inner loop
> when available and otherwise just assumes a single inner
> iteration which is conservative on the
>
> Any strong opinions?
>
> Richard.
>
> 2021-08-23 Richard Biener
>
> * doc/invoke.texi (vect-inner-loop-cost-factor): Remove
> documentation.
> * params.opt (--param vect-inner-loop-cost-factor): Remove.
> * tree-vect-loop.c (_loop_vec_info::_loop_vec_info):
>
This removes --param vect-inner-loop-cost-factor in favor of looking
at the estimated number of iterations of the inner loop
when available and otherwise just assumes a single inner
iteration which is conservative on the side of not vectorizing.
The alternative is to retain the --param for exactly
