On 21 October 2011 16:25, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 03:44:11PM +0200, Ira Rosen wrote:
>> But it's OK to allow modifier != NONE if it's not SLP, so we need &&, no?
>
> Well, in my patch that check was guarded by the if (slp_node ...),
> so presumably it would allow modifier ==
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 03:44:11PM +0200, Ira Rosen wrote:
> But it's OK to allow modifier != NONE if it's not SLP, so we need &&, no?
Well, in my patch that check was guarded by the if (slp_node ...),
so presumably it would allow modifier == NARROW vectorization in the loops
(otherwise some testc
On 21 October 2011 14:52, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 02:37:06PM +0200, Ira Rosen wrote:
>> > @@ -1620,7 +1615,13 @@ vectorizable_call (gimple stmt, gimple_s
>> >
>> > gcc_assert (!gimple_vuse (stmt));
>> >
>> > - if (modifier == NARROW)
>> > + if (slp_node || PURE_SLP_STMT
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 02:37:06PM +0200, Ira Rosen wrote:
> > @@ -1620,7 +1615,13 @@ vectorizable_call (gimple stmt, gimple_s
> >
> > gcc_assert (!gimple_vuse (stmt));
> >
> > - if (modifier == NARROW)
> > + if (slp_node || PURE_SLP_STMT (stmt_info))
> > + {
> > + if (modifier != NONE)
On 20 October 2011 23:50, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
Hi,
>
> While looking at *.vect dumps from Polyhedron, I've noticed the lack
> of SLP vectorization of builtin calls.
>
> This patch is an attempt to handle at least 1 and 2 operand builtin calls
> (SLP doesn't handle ternary stmts either yet)
