[PATCH] Properly sum costs in tree-vect-loop.c (PR tree-optimization/90973).
Martin Liška
mliska@suse.cz
Tue Jun 25 15:26:00 GMT 2019
On 6/25/19 4:18 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:50 AM David Malcolm <dmalcolm@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 2019-06-25 at 10:16 +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> That's a thinko that's pre-approved by Richi.
>>>
>>> Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression
>>> tests.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>>
>>> 2019-06-24 Martin Liska <mliska@suse.cz>
>>>
>>> PR tree-optimization/90973
>>> * tree-vect-loop.c (vect_get_known_peeling_cost): Sum retval
>>> of prologue and epilogue.
>>> ---
>>> gcc/tree-vect-loop.c | 4 ++--
>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>>> diff --git a/gcc/tree-vect-loop.c b/gcc/tree-vect-loop.c
>>> index d3facf67bf9..489bee65397 100644
>>> --- a/gcc/tree-vect-loop.c
>>> +++ b/gcc/tree-vect-loop.c
>>> @@ -3405,8 +3405,8 @@ vect_get_known_peeling_cost (loop_vec_info loop_vinfo, int peel_iters_prologue,
>>> iterations are unknown, count a taken branch per peeled loop. */
>>> retval = record_stmt_cost (prologue_cost_vec, 1, cond_branch_taken,
>>> NULL, 0, vect_prologue);
>>> - retval = record_stmt_cost (prologue_cost_vec, 1, cond_branch_taken,
>>> - NULL, 0, vect_epilogue);
>>> + retval += record_stmt_cost (prologue_cost_vec, 1, cond_branch_taken,
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Should this be epilogue_cost_vec?
>
> I think so.
>
>>> + NULL, 0, vect_epilogue);
>>
>> (caveat: I'm purely going by symmetry here)
I've got a patch that I've been testing. I'll install it if it survives
regression tests.
Thanks,
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0001-Fix-one-another-thinko-in-tree-vect-loop.c-PR-tree-o.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 1176 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/attachments/20190625/17a9530c/attachment.bin>
More information about the Gcc-patches
mailing list