> Hmm, this looks fragile - isn't the same effect when using
> -fdisable-tree-cunroll?
Maybe.
> That is, it looks like we could "move" the assert to decide_unrolling
> instead, deciding LPT_NONE?
We already have a guard for the assertion but it is bypassed here.
I'm going to commit this (equiva
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 10:05 AM Eric Botcazou wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> this is the failure of the assertion:
>
> /* Should not get here (such loop should be peeled instead). */
> gcc_assert (niter > max_unroll + 1);
>
> in unroll_loop_constant_iterations on a testcase both containing #pragma GCC
>
Hi,
this is the failure of the assertion:
/* Should not get here (such loop should be peeled instead). */
gcc_assert (niter > max_unroll + 1);
in unroll_loop_constant_iterations on a testcase both containing #pragma GCC
unroll and compiled with -fno-tree-loop-optimize. The proposed fix is
