On November 21, 2019 8:02:14 PM GMT+01:00, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>Richard Biener writes:
>> We're doing quite some useless work here and in the case we
>> actually manage to "vectorize" it, we've done a no-op (bb-slp-42.c).
>
>The point of that test was that we could share a vector load at b
Richard Biener writes:
> We're doing quite some useless work here and in the case we
> actually manage to "vectorize" it, we've done a no-op (bb-slp-42.c).
The point of that test was that we could share a vector load at b with
four constructors, so it's not really a no-op:
https://gcc.gnu.org/
We're doing quite some useless work here and in the case we
actually manage to "vectorize" it, we've done a no-op (bb-slp-42.c).
It also refactors the routine a bit and only dumps about "vectorizable"
CTORs when we actually analyze the SLP tree (when all CTOR elements
were internally defined).
