This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: More vectorizer testcases?
On 6/18/2007 1:26 PM, Dorit Nuzman wrote:
these 3 are actually not so simple... the main thing that's blocking 2 of
them right now is that they need support for stores with gaps, which can be
added except the other problem is that the vectorizer thinks it's not
profitable to vectorize them (or rather 2 of them. as does ICC by the way).
When you say "not profitable", is that target-dependent? I would be
satisfied when the vectorizer can vectorize it *but* prefer not to do it
because it can be done more efficiently on the specific target.
Of course, it would interesting to still "force" the vectorizer to
produce the code, so to compare the vectorized version with the
non-vectorized version and see if it is really right. Is there (will
there be) an option to turn off cost-based estimation within the vectorizer?
Since the time you opened these PRs we came quite a bit closer to
vectorizing these (the support for interleaved accesses and for multiple
data-types were also required). It will be fun to add the last missing bit
- the support for the stores-with-gaps. I hope we'll get to it before too
long...
Nice! I'm looking forward to it!
If you have other (hot) code examples that expose different missing
features I think that's always interesting to know about (but if it's like
the codes above then maybe it will not have much added value...).
I have dozens and dozens of loops which I believe that could be
vectorized and are not. I don't whether they are related to
store-with-gaps or not, though. So, well, I'll open the bugreports and
let you do the analysys. Feel free to close them as duplicates if you
think they're not worth to keep opened on their own.
--
Giovanni Bajo