This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: making the new if-converter not mangle IR that is already vectorizer-friendly
- From: Alan Lawrence <alan dot lawrence at arm dot com>
- To: Abe <abe_skolnik at yahoo dot com>
- Cc: "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, Sebastian Pop <sebpop at gmail dot com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:20:24 +0100
- Subject: Re: making the new if-converter not mangle IR that is already vectorizer-friendly
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <55946699 dot 4070803 at yahoo dot com> <559504BE dot 40207 at arm dot com> <5595AB07 dot 7040404 at yahoo dot com> <559657CA dot 4080706 at arm dot com> <559C3CAF dot 9040308 at yahoo dot com> <559CF42B dot 4010308 at arm dot com> <559D5489 dot 1040808 at yahoo dot com>
of course this says nothing about whether there is *some* other ISA that gets regressed!
After finishing fixing the known regressions, I intend/plan to reg-test for AArch64;
after that, I think I`m going to need some community help to reg-test for other ISAs.
OK, I'm confused. When you write "making the new if-converter not mangle
IR"...does "the new if-converter" mean your scratchpad fix to PR46029, or is
there some other new if-conversion phase that you are still working on and
haven't posted yet? If the latter, does this replace the existing
tree-if-conv.c, or is it an extra stage before that? I haven't yet understood
what you mean about "vectorizer-friendly" IR being mangled; is the problem that
your new phase transforms IR that can currently be if-converted by the existing
phase, into IR that can't? (Example?) Then I might (only "might", sorry!) be
able to help...