This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug target/27770] [4.2 Regression] wrong code in spec tests for -ftree-vectorize -maltivec
- From: "richard at codesourcery dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 6 Jun 2006 15:53:45 -0000
- Subject: [Bug target/27770] [4.2 Regression] wrong code in spec tests for -ftree-vectorize -maltivec
- References: <bug-27770-4503@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Comment #14 from richard at codesourcery dot com 2006-06-06 15:53 -------
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] wrong code in spec tests for -ftree-vectorize
-maltivec
"dje at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
> We're performing the auto-vectorization in unit-at-a-time-mode, so
> maybe we need to recompile the other functions. It seems that we're
> going to encounter more problems along these lines with LTO.
Well, I'm not convinced recompilation is the way to go. I can't imagine
it scaling well in pathological cases. If we're talking about long-term
fixes, I think we should just make sure that we vectorise all functions
before applying rtl optimisations to any of them. But that's all moot
anyway: either approach will take a long time to implement. (Note that,
as things stand, we've already written out the asm code for bar() by the
time we vectorise foo().)
As far as 4.2 fixes go, does anyone disagree with my earlier comment?
Richard
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27770