On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Alan Hayward wrote:
>
>
> On 27/10/2015 11:36, "Richard Biener" wrote:
>
>>On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Alan Hayward
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 26/10/2015 13:35, "Richard Biener"
>>>wrote:
>>>
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Alan Hayward
wrote:
>
On 27/10/2015 11:36, "Richard Biener" wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Alan Hayward
>wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 26/10/2015 13:35, "Richard Biener"
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Alan Hayward
>>>wrote:
There is a potential bug in vectorizable_live_operation.
Co
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Alan Hayward wrote:
>
>
> On 26/10/2015 13:35, "Richard Biener" wrote:
>
>>On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Alan Hayward
>>wrote:
>>> There is a potential bug in vectorizable_live_operation.
>>>
>>> Consider the case where the first op for stmt is valid, but the
On 26/10/2015 13:35, "Richard Biener" wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Alan Hayward
>wrote:
>> There is a potential bug in vectorizable_live_operation.
>>
>> Consider the case where the first op for stmt is valid, but the second
>>is
>> null.
>> The first time through the for () loop,
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Alan Hayward wrote:
> There is a potential bug in vectorizable_live_operation.
>
> Consider the case where the first op for stmt is valid, but the second is
> null.
> The first time through the for () loop, it will call out to
> vect_is_simple_use () which will set