Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> > Does this look reasonable? Any comments or suggestions appreciated!
>
> Yes, getting rid of this fragile interaction by doing more work in
> vect_recog_widen_shift_pattern sounds like the correct thing to do.
OK, I'll try t
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 10:29:36AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > > Does this look reasonable? Any comments or suggestions appreciated!
> >
> > Yes, getting rid of this fragile interaction by doing more work in
> > vect_recog_widen_shift_pattern sounds like the correct
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 10:29:36AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > Does this look reasonable? Any comments or suggestions appreciated!
>
> Yes, getting rid of this fragile interaction by doing more work in
> vect_recog_widen_shift_pattern sounds like the correct thing to do.
Or give up when s
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Hello,
>
> PR 52633 is caused by bad interaction between two different vectorizer
> pattern recognition passed. A minimal test case is:
>
> void
> test (unsigned short *x, signed char *y)
> {
> int i;
> for (i = 0; i < 32; i++)
> x[i] = (shor
Hello,
PR 52633 is caused by bad interaction between two different vectorizer
pattern recognition passed. A minimal test case is:
void
test (unsigned short *x, signed char *y)
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 32; i++)
x[i] = (short) (y[i] << 5);
}
built with "cc1 -O3 -march=armv7-a -mfpu=neon -
