This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: New GCC options for loop vectorization
- From: Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google dot com>
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 09:48:07 -0700
- Subject: Re: New GCC options for loop vectorization
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAAkRFZJzPkDJe=y2RqDwXsegN1So-u8mvUM2Cc2=4yZm29ip5g at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAFiYyc204YzVZVSOKnzomiMZs0Spe7=8AMUz+ho-xzr6beahXg at mail dot gmail dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1309131641400 dot 13483 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk>
Ok -- then my updated patch is wrong then. The implementation in the
first version matches the requirement.
thanks,
David
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Joseph S. Myers
<joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Sep 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> @@ -1691,6 +1695,12 @@ common_handle_option (struct gcc_options
>> opts->x_flag_ipa_reference = false;
>> break;
>>
>> + case OPT_ftree_vectorize:
>> + if (!opts_set->x_flag_tree_loop_vectorize)
>> + opts->x_flag_tree_loop_vectorize = value;
>> + if (!opts_set->x_flag_tree_slp_vectorize)
>> + opts->x_flag_tree_slp_vectorize = value;
>> + break;
>>
>> doesn't look obviously correct. Does that handle
>
> It looks right to me. The general principle is that the more specific
> option takes precedence over the less specific one, whatever the order on
> the command line.
>
>> -ftree-vectorize -fno-tree-loop-vectorize -ftree-vectorize
>
> Should mean -ftree-slp-vectorize.
>
>> -ftree-loop-vectorize -fno-tree-vectorize
>
> Should mean -ftree-loop-vectorize.
>
>> -ftree-slp-vectorize -fno-tree-vectorize
>
> Should mean -ftree-slp-vectorize.
>
> --
> Joseph S. Myers
> joseph@codesourcery.com