> isn't is_cond_op implied by mask != NULL? That said, if we ever end
> up here with a non-cond op but a loop mask we effectively want the
> same behvior so I think eliding is_cond_op and instead checking
> mask != NULL_TREE below is more future proof.
>
> OK with that change.
Thanks, attached v
On Tue, 7 Nov 2023, Robin Dapp wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this restricts tree-ifcvt to only create COND_OPs when we versioned the
> loop for vectorization. Apart from that it re-creates a VEC_COND_EXPR
> in vect_expand_fold_left if we emitted a COND_OP.
>
> I'm still missing the "bail out" part for vect_
Hi,
this restricts tree-ifcvt to only create COND_OPs when we versioned the
loop for vectorization. Apart from that it re-creates a VEC_COND_EXPR
in vect_expand_fold_left if we emitted a COND_OP.
I'm still missing the "bail out" part for vect_expand_fold_left, though?
Bootstrap, testsuites are