diff options
author | Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> | 2020-12-16 13:08:07 +0100 |
---|---|---|
committer | Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> | 2020-12-16 13:08:07 +0100 |
commit | cd676dfa57e643a4f7d8445e6ebad0f21cf3fd84 (patch) | |
tree | 3fc863b0210fb4d33afb5f5b16063cb9c4b79386 /gcc/ada/s-oscons-tmplt.c | |
parent | eece52b53b75767593282d178bae12ceebb33f12 (diff) | |
download | gcc-cd676dfa57e643a4f7d8445e6ebad0f21cf3fd84.zip gcc-cd676dfa57e643a4f7d8445e6ebad0f21cf3fd84.tar.gz gcc-cd676dfa57e643a4f7d8445e6ebad0f21cf3fd84.tar.bz2 |
bswap: Handle vector CONSTRUCTORs [PR96239]
The following patch teaches the bswap pass to handle for small (2/4/8 byte
long) vectors a CONSTRUCTOR by determining if the bytes of the constructor
come from non-vector sources and are either nop or bswap and changing the
CONSTRUCTOR in that case to VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR from scalar integer to
the vector type.
Unfortunately, as I found after the patch was written, due to pass ordering
this doesn't really fix the original testcase, just the one I wrote,
because both loop and slp vectorization is done only after the bswap pass.
A possible way out of that would be to perform just this particular bswap
optimization (i.e. for CONSTRUCTOR assignments with integral vector types
call find_bswap_or_nop and bswap_replace if successful) also during the
store merging pass, it isn't really a store, but the store merging pass
already performs bswapping when handling store, so it wouldn't be that big
hack. What do you think?
2020-12-16 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
PR tree-optimization/96239
* gimple-ssa-store-merging.c (find_bswap_or_nop): Handle a vector
CONSTRUCTOR.
(bswap_replace): Likewise.
* gcc.dg/pr96239.c: New test.
Diffstat (limited to 'gcc/ada/s-oscons-tmplt.c')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions