* Re: [PATCH 0/2, fortran] Better code generation for DO loops with +-1 step [not found] ` <20160708090334.GJ69430@kam.mff.cuni.cz> @ 2016-07-08 9:05 ` Jakub Jelinek 2016-07-08 9:13 ` FX 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Jakub Jelinek @ 2016-07-08 9:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jan Hubicka, fortran Cc: Martin Liška, Richard Biener, GCC Patches, Dominique Dhumieres, williamclodius On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 11:03:35AM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 10:33:45AM +0200, Martin LiÅ¡ka wrote: > > > On 07/07/2016 04:40 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Why is the behavior only undefined for step 1 if the last iteration IV > > > >> increment overflows? > > > >> Doesn't this apply to all step values? > > > > > > > > This is what Fortran standard says: > > > > > > > > The iteration count is established and is the value of the expression (m2-m1+m3)/m3 unless that value is negative, > > > > in which case the iteration count is 0. > > > > > > > > My reading of this is that the do statement is undefined whenever the expression above is undefined > > > > (m1 is lower bound, m2 is upper bound, m3 is step) and because I think the evaulation order of > > > > m2-m1+m3 is not fixed, I think the statement is not defined whethever (m2-m1), (m1+m3) or (m2-m1)+m3 > > > > m1+m3? Did you mean m3-m1 or -m1+m3 instead? > > Ah yes, -m1+m3. But I am by no means language expert - this was meant as a heads up to Fortran > people :) Heads up to Fortran people should be sent to fortran@gcc.gnu.org ;) Jakub ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 0/2, fortran] Better code generation for DO loops with +-1 step 2016-07-08 9:05 ` [PATCH 0/2, fortran] Better code generation for DO loops with +-1 step Jakub Jelinek @ 2016-07-08 9:13 ` FX 0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: FX @ 2016-07-08 9:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jakub Jelinek Cc: Jan Hubicka, fortran, Martin Liška, Richard Biener, GCC Patches, Dominique Dhumieres, williamclodius >>>>> This is what Fortran standard says: >>>>> >>>>> The iteration count is established and is the value of the expression (m2-m1+m3)/m3 unless that value is negative, >>>>> in which case the iteration count is 0. >>>>> >>>>> My reading of this is that the do statement is undefined whenever the expression above is undefined >>>>> (m1 is lower bound, m2 is upper bound, m3 is step) and because I think the evaulation order of >>>>> m2-m1+m3 is not fixed, I think the statement is not defined whethever (m2-m1), (m1+m3) or (m2-m1)+m3 In the Fortran standard, (m2-m1+m3)/m3 is a mathematical expression, not a “construct”. So it cannot be “undefined”. If you have explicit cases where you are asking “is this valid or invalid” please post them here (fortran@) and we will tell you. FX ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <86a3b430-0282-305b-8796-5a696d53b46a@suse.cz>]
[parent not found: <9b6e6e1f-b62c-7ea4-1f72-417472fa96e4@redhat.com>]
* Re: [PATCH] Fix Fortran DO loop fallback [not found] ` <9b6e6e1f-b62c-7ea4-1f72-417472fa96e4@redhat.com> @ 2016-07-11 15:24 ` Mike Stump [not found] ` <CAFiYyc1sotqJVzpNaKiZ4azVsWxeouvZSRvMGXP98XStQrLDoA@mail.gmail.com> 1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Mike Stump @ 2016-07-11 15:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Martin Liška; +Cc: GCC Patches, Fortran List, Jeff Law > On Jul 11, 2016, at 7:44 AM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 07/08/2016 08:26 AM, Martin Liška wrote: >> Hello >> >> Following patch fixes fallout caused by the patch set: >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2016-07/msg00097.html >> >> Ready after it finished regression tests? >> Thanks, >> Martin >> >> >> 0001-Fix-Fortran-DO-loop-fallback.patch >> >> >> From c5dd7ad62f795cce560c7f1bb8767b7ed9298d8a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> From: marxin <mliska@suse.cz> >> Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 15:51:54 +0200 >> Subject: [PATCH] Fix Fortran DO loop fallback >> >> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: >> >> 2016-07-08 Martin Liska <mliska@suse.cz> >> >> * gfortran.dg/ldist-1.f90: Update expected dump scan. >> * gfortran.dg/pr42108.f90: Likewise. >> * gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283.f: Likewise. > Shouldn't ldist-1.f90 be scan-tree-dump-not? It seems like you change it from that just last week, but it wasn't mentioned in the ChangeLog. > > OK with that change. A gentle reminder, fortran patches should include the fortran list... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <CAFiYyc1sotqJVzpNaKiZ4azVsWxeouvZSRvMGXP98XStQrLDoA@mail.gmail.com>]
* Re: [PATCH] Fix Fortran DO loop fallback [not found] ` <CAFiYyc1sotqJVzpNaKiZ4azVsWxeouvZSRvMGXP98XStQrLDoA@mail.gmail.com> @ 2016-07-12 12:31 ` Martin Liška 2016-07-12 13:15 ` Richard Biener 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Martin Liška @ 2016-07-12 12:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Biener, Jeff Law; +Cc: GCC Patches, fortran On 07/12/2016 12:14 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote: >> On 07/08/2016 08:26 AM, Martin LiÅ¡ka wrote: >>> >>> Hello >>> >>> Following patch fixes fallout caused by the patch set: >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2016-07/msg00097.html >>> >>> Ready after it finished regression tests? >>> Thanks, >>> Martin >>> >>> >>> 0001-Fix-Fortran-DO-loop-fallback.patch >>> >>> >>> From c5dd7ad62f795cce560c7f1bb8767b7ed9298d8a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >>> From: marxin <mliska@suse.cz> >>> Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 15:51:54 +0200 >>> Subject: [PATCH] Fix Fortran DO loop fallback >>> >>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: >>> >>> 2016-07-08 Martin Liska <mliska@suse.cz> >>> >>> * gfortran.dg/ldist-1.f90: Update expected dump scan. >>> * gfortran.dg/pr42108.f90: Likewise. >>> * gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283.f: Likewise. >> >> Shouldn't ldist-1.f90 be scan-tree-dump-not? It seems like you change it >> from that just last week, but it wasn't mentioned in the ChangeLog. > > gfortran.dg/pr42108.f90 also looks pointless now? I suppose there is nothing > to hoist after the change? Do we now have an option to revert back to old > behavior? If so it would be better to use that flag here. No, there's no option. So, as the test-case now looks pointless, should I mark it with xfail now? > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283.f > b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283.f > index 7df3d99..2933f51 100644 > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283.f > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283.f > @@ -13,4 +13,4 @@ C { dg-additional-options "-fvect-cost-model=dynamic" } > beta=3.141593 > y=y+beta*x > end > -C { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorized 1 loops" 2 "vect" { > target { vect_hw_misalign } } } } > +C { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "vectorized 1 loops" "vect" { target { > vect_hw_misalign } } } } > > so why do we no longer vectorize 1 loops in two functions? The > testcase works for me > unchanged. Yeah, it works on -m64, however as we're able to merge the functions with -m32 (-fipa-icf), then I recommend to disable ICF for the test-case. Reason why the pair of functions on x86_64 is that: test3 (real(kind=4)[4] * restrict x, real(kind=4)[4] * restrict y) { <bb 2>: <bb 3>: # S.0_6 = PHI <1(2), S.0_12(4)> if (S.0_6 > 4) goto <bb 5>; else goto <bb 4>; ... test2 (real(kind=4)[4] * restrict x, real(kind=4)[4] * restrict y) { integer(kind=4) i; <bb 2>: <bb 3>: # i_6 = PHI <1(2), i_12(4)> ... On x86_64 types of 'S.0_6' and 'i' are not compatible. As I've just read tree dump files, # S.0_6 = PHI <1(2), S.0_12(4)> if (S.0_6 > 4) is optimized out by VRP, which runs after IPA ICF. I'll send patch right after we'll agree on pr42108.f90. Thanks, Martin > > Richard. > >> OK with that change. >> >> jeff >> >> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Fix Fortran DO loop fallback 2016-07-12 12:31 ` Martin Liška @ 2016-07-12 13:15 ` Richard Biener 2016-07-12 14:54 ` Martin Liška 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Richard Biener @ 2016-07-12 13:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Martin Liška; +Cc: Jeff Law, GCC Patches, fortran On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Martin Liška <mliska@suse.cz> wrote: > On 07/12/2016 12:14 PM, Richard Biener wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote: >>> On 07/08/2016 08:26 AM, Martin Liška wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello >>>> >>>> Following patch fixes fallout caused by the patch set: >>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2016-07/msg00097.html >>>> >>>> Ready after it finished regression tests? >>>> Thanks, >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> >>>> 0001-Fix-Fortran-DO-loop-fallback.patch >>>> >>>> >>>> From c5dd7ad62f795cce560c7f1bb8767b7ed9298d8a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >>>> From: marxin <mliska@suse.cz> >>>> Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 15:51:54 +0200 >>>> Subject: [PATCH] Fix Fortran DO loop fallback >>>> >>>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: >>>> >>>> 2016-07-08 Martin Liska <mliska@suse.cz> >>>> >>>> * gfortran.dg/ldist-1.f90: Update expected dump scan. >>>> * gfortran.dg/pr42108.f90: Likewise. >>>> * gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283.f: Likewise. >>> >>> Shouldn't ldist-1.f90 be scan-tree-dump-not? It seems like you change it >>> from that just last week, but it wasn't mentioned in the ChangeLog. >> >> gfortran.dg/pr42108.f90 also looks pointless now? I suppose there is nothing >> to hoist after the change? Do we now have an option to revert back to old >> behavior? If so it would be better to use that flag here. > > No, there's no option. So, as the test-case now looks pointless, should I mark it > with xfail now? The scan for 1 *n_ after FRE looks still useful. Btw, the testcase doesn't fail for me, we _do_ hoist the division in PRE, just not with -m32 anymore. Can you confirm this? >> >> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283.f >> b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283.f >> index 7df3d99..2933f51 100644 >> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283.f >> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283.f >> @@ -13,4 +13,4 @@ C { dg-additional-options "-fvect-cost-model=dynamic" } >> beta=3.141593 >> y=y+beta*x >> end >> -C { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorized 1 loops" 2 "vect" { >> target { vect_hw_misalign } } } } >> +C { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "vectorized 1 loops" "vect" { target { >> vect_hw_misalign } } } } >> >> so why do we no longer vectorize 1 loops in two functions? The >> testcase works for me >> unchanged. > > Yeah, it works on -m64, however as we're able to merge the functions with -m32 (-fipa-icf), > then I recommend to disable ICF for the test-case. > > Reason why the pair of functions on x86_64 is that: > > test3 (real(kind=4)[4] * restrict x, real(kind=4)[4] * restrict y) > { > <bb 2>: > > <bb 3>: > # S.0_6 = PHI <1(2), S.0_12(4)> > if (S.0_6 > 4) > goto <bb 5>; > else > goto <bb 4>; > ... > > test2 (real(kind=4)[4] * restrict x, real(kind=4)[4] * restrict y) > { > integer(kind=4) i; > > <bb 2>: > > <bb 3>: > # i_6 = PHI <1(2), i_12(4)> > ... > > On x86_64 types of 'S.0_6' and 'i' are not compatible. As I've just read tree dump files, > # S.0_6 = PHI <1(2), S.0_12(4)> > if (S.0_6 > 4) > > is optimized out by VRP, which runs after IPA ICF. > > I'll send patch right after we'll agree on pr42108.f90. > > Thanks, > Martin > >> >> Richard. >> >>> OK with that change. >>> >>> jeff >>> >>> > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Fix Fortran DO loop fallback 2016-07-12 13:15 ` Richard Biener @ 2016-07-12 14:54 ` Martin Liška 2016-07-13 10:32 ` Richard Biener 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Martin Liška @ 2016-07-12 14:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Biener; +Cc: Jeff Law, GCC Patches, fortran [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 339 bytes --] On 07/12/2016 03:15 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > The scan for 1 *n_ after FRE looks still useful. Btw, the testcase > doesn't fail for me, > we _do_ hoist the division in PRE, just not with -m32 anymore. Can > you confirm this? Yeah, it works for both -m32 and -m64. This is final version of the patch, may I install it? Thanks, Martin [-- Attachment #2: 0001-Fix-Fortran-DO-loop-fallback-v2.patch --] [-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 2149 bytes --] From e23c13dcc2f5e1967b0941c7a627241e3b6759e8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: marxin <mliska@suse.cz> Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 15:51:54 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Fix Fortran DO loop fallback gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-07-08 Martin Liska <mliska@suse.cz> * gfortran.dg/ldist-1.f90: Revert change introduces in r238114. * gfortran.dg/pr42108.f90: Add -fno-ipa-icf to additional options. * gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283.f: Update expected dump scan. --- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ldist-1.f90 | 2 +- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr42108.f90 | 2 -- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283.f | 2 +- 3 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ldist-1.f90 b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ldist-1.f90 index 2030328..ea3990d 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ldist-1.f90 +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ldist-1.f90 @@ -32,4 +32,4 @@ end Subroutine PADEC ! There are 5 legal partitions in this code. Based on the data ! locality heuristic, this loop should not be split. -! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "distributed: split to" "ldist" } } +! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-not "distributed: split to" "ldist" } } diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr42108.f90 b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr42108.f90 index eb93604..a913aa4 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr42108.f90 +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr42108.f90 @@ -21,7 +21,5 @@ subroutine eval(foo1,foo2,foo3,foo4,x,n,nnd) end do end subroutine eval -! We should have hoisted the division -! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "in all uses of countm1\[^\n\]* / " "pre" } } ! There should be only one load from n left ! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "\\*n_" 1 "fre1" } } diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283.f b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283.f index 7df3d99..4d8cba1 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283.f +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283.f @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ C { dg-do compile } -C { dg-additional-options "-fvect-cost-model=dynamic" } +C { dg-additional-options "-fvect-cost-model=dynamic -fno-ipa-icf" } subroutine test2(x,y) real x(4),y(4) beta=3.141593 -- 2.8.4 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Fix Fortran DO loop fallback 2016-07-12 14:54 ` Martin Liška @ 2016-07-13 10:32 ` Richard Biener 2016-07-13 14:04 ` Martin Liška 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Richard Biener @ 2016-07-13 10:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Martin Liška; +Cc: Jeff Law, GCC Patches, fortran On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Martin Liška <mliska@suse.cz> wrote: > On 07/12/2016 03:15 PM, Richard Biener wrote: >> The scan for 1 *n_ after FRE looks still useful. Btw, the testcase >> doesn't fail for me, >> we _do_ hoist the division in PRE, just not with -m32 anymore. Can >> you confirm this? > > Yeah, it works for both -m32 and -m64. > This is final version of the patch, may I install it? Changelog has a swapped entry. Ok with fixing that. Richard. > Thanks, > Martin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Fix Fortran DO loop fallback 2016-07-13 10:32 ` Richard Biener @ 2016-07-13 14:04 ` Martin Liška 0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Martin Liška @ 2016-07-13 14:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Biener; +Cc: Jeff Law, GCC Patches, fortran On 07/13/2016 12:32 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > Changelog has a swapped entry. > > Ok with fixing that. > Richard. Fixed and installed as r238300. M. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-07-13 14:04 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <cover.1467883947.git.mliska@suse.cz>
[not found] ` <CAFiYyc0FM93FwqjYOB+V2yn8b=g5xFL09U2xT0gaCOZLc4z3tA@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <20160707144035.GA30837@kam.mff.cuni.cz>
[not found] ` <c1dd7016-53bc-0ff9-cb26-36054bfdbaaa@suse.cz>
[not found] ` <20160708084029.GZ7387@tucnak.redhat.com>
[not found] ` <20160708090334.GJ69430@kam.mff.cuni.cz>
2016-07-08 9:05 ` [PATCH 0/2, fortran] Better code generation for DO loops with +-1 step Jakub Jelinek
2016-07-08 9:13 ` FX
[not found] ` <86a3b430-0282-305b-8796-5a696d53b46a@suse.cz>
[not found] ` <9b6e6e1f-b62c-7ea4-1f72-417472fa96e4@redhat.com>
2016-07-11 15:24 ` [PATCH] Fix Fortran DO loop fallback Mike Stump
[not found] ` <CAFiYyc1sotqJVzpNaKiZ4azVsWxeouvZSRvMGXP98XStQrLDoA@mail.gmail.com>
2016-07-12 12:31 ` Martin Liška
2016-07-12 13:15 ` Richard Biener
2016-07-12 14:54 ` Martin Liška
2016-07-13 10:32 ` Richard Biener
2016-07-13 14:04 ` Martin Liška
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).