This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH 4/5] New target check: vect_nopeel - v2


Andreas Krebbel <krebbel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> - vect_nopeel renamed to vect_no_peel
> - documentation added.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> 2017-09-26  Andreas Krebbel  <krebbel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
> 	* doc/sourcebuild.texi: Document vect_no_peel.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> 2017-09-26  Andreas Krebbel  <krebbel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
> 	* g++.dg/vect/slp-pr56812.cc: Check vect_nopeel.
> 	* lib/target-supports.exp (check_effective_target_vect_nopeel):
> 	New proc.

Sorry for the bikeshedding, but how about having a positive test
like vect_can_peel instead?  ! vect_no... can be hard to read in
complex conditions.  (There's already that problem with existing
vect_no...s.)

> -/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "basic block vectorized" 1 "slp1" } } */
>
> +/* For targets without vector loop peeling the loop becomes cheap
>
> +   enough to be vectorized.  */
>
> +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "basic block vectorized" 1 "slp1" { target { ! vect_no_peel }
> } } } */

How about an xfail instead?  Then it'll be noticeable (via an XPASS)
if we fail to vectorise the loop when we should.

Thanks,
Richard


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]