Re: PATCH: PR71818: Don't advance IVs with a variable step

2016-08-01 Thread Alan Hayward
On 01/08/2016 14:49, "Richard Biener" wrote: >On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Alan Hayward >wrote: >> In the given test case, the loop is split into vectorised and non >> vectorised >> versions due to peeling. At the end of the loop the IVs are incremented >>to >> their latest value. This is

Re: PATCH: PR71818: Don't advance IVs with a variable step

2016-08-01 Thread Richard Biener
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Alan Hayward wrote: > In the given test case, the loop is split into vectorised and non > vectorised > versions due to peeling. At the end of the loop the IVs are incremented to > their latest value. This is achieved by taking the base of the loop (g_21) > and > ad