Hi!
On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 10:28:34AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > + tree offset = dataref_offset
> > + ? dataref_offset
> > + : build_int_cst (ref_type, 0);
>
> The above is misformatted. The ? and : shoul
On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 06:07:55PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> > The above is misformatted. The ? and : shouldn't be indented further than
> > the dataref_offset, but usually e.g. for the sake of emacs we add ()s around
> > the expression in this case. So:
> > tree offset = (dat
on 2020/4/2 下午5:21, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 9:15 AM Kewen.Lin wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The commit r10-7415 brings scalar type consideration
>> to eliminate epilogue peeling for gaps, but it exposed
>> one problem that the current handling doesn't consider
>> the memory access
Hi,
on 2020/4/2 下午4:28, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 03:15:42PM +0800, Kewen.Lin via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
> Just formatting nits, not commenting on what the actual patch does.
>
>> --- a/gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c
>> +++ b/gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c
>> @@ -9590,11 +9590,20 @@ ve
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 9:15 AM Kewen.Lin wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> The commit r10-7415 brings scalar type consideration
> to eliminate epilogue peeling for gaps, but it exposed
> one problem that the current handling doesn't consider
> the memory access type VMAT_CONTIGUOUS_REVERSE, for
> which the overr
Hi!
On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 03:15:42PM +0800, Kewen.Lin via Gcc-patches wrote:
Just formatting nits, not commenting on what the actual patch does.
> --- a/gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c
> +++ b/gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c
> @@ -9590,11 +9590,20 @@ vectorizable_load (stmt_vec_info stmt_info,
> gimple_stmt_iter
Hi,
The commit r10-7415 brings scalar type consideration
to eliminate epilogue peeling for gaps, but it exposed
one problem that the current handling doesn't consider
the memory access type VMAT_CONTIGUOUS_REVERSE, for
which the overrun happens on low address side. This
patch is to make the code
