[Bug tree-optimization/14741] missing transformations lead to poorly optimized code

[Bug tree-optimization/14741] missing transformations lead to poorly optimized code

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #14 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-10-07 21:21 -------
I don't have time to work on these (new job), so unassigning.


-- 

steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|steven at gcc dot gnu dot   |unassigned at gcc dot gnu
                   |org                         |dot org
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |NEW


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14741

[Bug tree-optimization/14741] missing transformations lead to poorly optimized code

[jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk]

------- Comment #15 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk  2007-07-03 18:09 -------
current gfortran trunk is still about a factor of 8 slower than ifort:

> gfortran -O3 -ffast-math -ftree-vectorize -march=native test.f90
> ./a.out
   12.9808110000000        10.2399999999998
> ifort -xT -O2 test.f90
> ./a.out
   1.62810200000000        10.2399999999998

(first number is the time)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14741

[Bug tree-optimization/14741] missing transformations lead to poorly optimized code

[jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 619 bytes --]



------- Comment #16 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk  2009-09-29 18:59 -------
since graphite should be able to fix this PR, I tried it without luck:

> gfortran -ffast-math -O3 -march=native -fgraphite -floop-interchange -floop-block test.f90
test.f90: In function ‘MAIN__’:
test.f90:1:0: sorry, unimplemented: loop blocking not implemented
test.f90:1:0: internal compiler error: in apply_poly_transforms, at
graphite-poly.c:253
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See <http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14741

[Bug optimization/14741] New: missing transformations lead to poorly optimized code

[jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk]

I think this testcase is worth a PR so that it might be solved one day.

as shown and discussed in :
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-03/msg01457.html
and related messages gfortran is about 10 times slower than ifc (or xlf) on the
code  below, and no compiler options seem to be able to change this (this seems
not tree-ssa specific).

INTEGER, PARAMETER :: N=1024
REAL*8 :: A(N,N), B(N,N), C(N,N)
REAL*8 :: t1,t2
A=0.1D0
B=0.1D0
C=0.0D0
CALL cpu_time(t1)
CALL mult(A,B,C,N)
CALL cpu_time(t2)
write(6,*) t2-t1,C(1,1)
END

SUBROUTINE mult(A,B,C,N)
REAL*8 :: A(N,N), B(N,N), C(N,N)
INTEGER :: I,J,K,N
DO J=1,N
DO I=1,N
DO K=1,N
  C(I,J)=C(I,J)+A(I,K)*B(K,J)
ENDDO
ENDDO
ENDDO
END

-- 
           Summary: missing transformations lead to poorly optimized code
           Product: gcc
           Version: tree-ssa
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: optimization
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
                CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14741

[Bug tree-optimization/14741] missing transformations lead to poorly optimized code

[rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-01-18 11:35 -------
The relevant part of the code looks like this:

do
{
  k_2 = phi(...,k_1);

  k_1 = k_2 + 1
} while (k_2 != endvalue)

/* k_1 unused outside of the loop */

Ivopts decide that it makes more sense to perform increment after the comparison:

while (1)
{
  k_2 = phi(...,k_1);

  if (k_2 == endvalue)
    break;
  k_1 = k_2 + 1
}

Which sort of is true; number of executions of the increment is decreased by one
per loop execution, and also we need one less register, since k_1 and k_2 can be
coalesced now.

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14741

[Bug tree-optimization/14741] missing transformations lead to poorly optimized code

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-01-19 23:38 -------
We now get:
L33:
	lfd f13,0(r11)
	add r11,r11,r8
	lfd f0,0(r10)
	addi r10,r10,8
	fmadd f0,f13,f0,f12
	fmr f12,f0
	bdnz L33

Which is much better, thanks Zdenek.

The only problem left looks a coalescing problem with out of ssa
Before out of ssa:
  # ivtmp.89_54 = PHI <ivtmp.89_31(2), ivtmp.89_33(3)>;
  # lsm_tmp.85_52 = PHI <lsm_tmp.85_53(2), D.538_49(3)>;
  # k_3 = PHI <1(2), k_7(3)>;
<L4>:;
  D.529_38 = k_3 * stride.10_5;
  D.530_39 = i_2 + D.529_38;
  D.531_40 = offset.11_9 + D.530_39;
  D.532_42 = (*a_41)[D.531_40];
  b_30 = ivtmp.89_54;
  D.536_47 = *b_30;
  D.537_48 = D.532_42 * D.536_47;
  D.538_49 = D.537_48 + lsm_tmp.85_52;
  D.773_12 = (<unnamed type>) k_3;
  D.774_8 = D.773_12 + 1;
  k_7 = (int4) D.774_8;
  ivtmp.89_33 = ivtmp.89_54 + 8B;
  D.771_18 = (<unnamed type>) k_7;
  D.772_17 = D.771_18 + 4294967295;
  k_13 = (int4) D.772_17;
  if (stride.10_5 == k_13) goto <L25>; else goto <L4>;

After:
<L4>:;
  D.538 = (*a)[offset.11 + i + k * stride.10] * *ivtmp.89 + lsm_tmp.85;
  k = (int4) ((<unnamed type>) k + 1);
  ivtmp.89 = ivtmp.89 + 8B;
  lsm_tmp.85 = D.538;
  if (stride.10 == (int4) ((<unnamed type>) k + 4294967295)) goto <L25>; else goto <L4>;

We should have coalesced lsm_tmp.85 and D.538 together.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|normal                      |enhancement


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14741

[Bug tree-optimization/14741] missing transformations lead to poorly optimized code

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-01-23 13:31 -------
My patch for PR19464 will fix this. 
 

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  BugsThisDependsOn|                            |19464
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |steven at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |dot org                     |org
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed|2004-09-15 03:25:55         |2005-01-23 13:31:52
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14741

[Bug tree-optimization/14741] missing transformations lead to poorly optimized code

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 
Bug 14741 depends on bug 19464, which changed state.

Bug 19464 Summary: [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] gcse causes poor register allocation
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19464

           What    |Old Value                   |New Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14741

[Bug tree-optimization/14741] missing transformations lead to poorly optimized code

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-01-23 20:00 -------
Joost, could you try this with CVS head?  We should do a lot better 
now.  Could you also show the code ifc produces for your test case? 
Maybe they have some option enabled by default that we have disabled 
by default (loop unrolling, vectorization, etc.). 

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14741

[Bug tree-optimization/14741] missing transformations lead to poorly optimized code

[jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk]

------- Additional Comments From jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk  2005-01-28 15:59 -------
Hi Steven, I now ( gcc version 4.0.0 20050128 (experimental) )get the following,
where the first number is the timing.

multgen/basic_mult> gfortran -O3 -ffast-math mult.f90
multgen/basic_mult> ./a.out
   59.0300000000000        10.2400000000000     

which is good as compared to
multgen/basic_mult> ifort -O3 mult.f90
multgen/basic_mult> ./a.out
   64.8900000000000        10.2399999999998     

but very bad (factor 20) as compared to

multgen/basic_mult> ifort -O3 -xN mult.f90
mult.f90(4) : (col. 0) remark: LOOP WAS VECTORIZED.
mult.f90(5) : (col. 0) remark: LOOP WAS VECTORIZED.
mult.f90(6) : (col. 0) remark: LOOP WAS VECTORIZED.
multgen/basic_mult> ./a.out
   2.13000000000000        10.2399999999998     

I'll try to attach the relevant asm for this.

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14741

[Bug tree-optimization/14741] missing transformations lead to poorly optimized code

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-01-28 16:23 -------
The -xN you add make ifort specialize the code for Pentium 4.  So far,
nobody has cared to make GCC produce good code for the good old Pentium 4
so I would not be terribly surprised if we lose a lot just on the normal
code generation.  Add to that the fact that -xN enables a lot of extra
optimizations in ifort that gcc does not have yet (vectorization is one
example in your case), it is not a surprise at all that we are that much
slower.

I don't know if the mainline vectorizer is already smart enough to handle
the loop in your code.  Probably it is not.

You could try "gfortran -O3 -mtune=pentium4  -ffast-math -mfpmath=sse
-ftree-loop-linear -ftree-vectorize yourcode.f90" and see if it helps.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14741

[Bug tree-optimization/14741] missing transformations lead to poorly optimized code

[jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk]

------- Additional Comments From jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk  2005-01-28 16:31 -------

> You could try "gfortran -O3 -mtune=pentium4  -ffast-math -mfpmath=sse
> -ftree-loop-linear -ftree-vectorize yourcode.f90" and see if it helps.

Unhappily, seems to make things slower:

 multgen/basic_mult>  gfortran -O3 -mtune=pentium4  -ffast-math -mfpmath=sse 
-ftree-loop-linear -ftree-vectorize mult.f90 
mult.f90:0: warning: SSE instruction set disabled, using 387 arithmetics
multgen/basic_mult> ./a.out
   60.3900000000000        10.2400000000000     

whereas removing some of these flags helps a little

multgen/basic_mult> gfortran -O3 -mtune=pentium4 -ffast-math mult.f90
multgen/basic_mult> ./a.out
   56.4700000000000        10.2400000000000     




-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14741

Re: [Bug tree-optimization/14741] missing transformations lead to poorly optimized code

[Daniel Berlin]

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk wrote:

>
> ------- Additional Comments From jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk  2005-01-28 16:31 -------
>
>> You could try "gfortran -O3 -mtune=pentium4  -ffast-math -mfpmath=sse
>> -ftree-loop-linear -ftree-vectorize yourcode.f90" and see if it helps.
>
> Unhappily, seems to make things slower:
>
> multgen/basic_mult>  gfortran -O3 -mtune=pentium4  -ffast-math -mfpmath=sse
> -ftree-loop-linear -ftree-vectorize mult.f90
> mult.f90:0: warning: SSE instruction set disabled, using 387 arithmetics

You'd need -msse2 or -msse (or is it -march=pentium4 that enables these?)

[Bug tree-optimization/14741] missing transformations lead to poorly optimized code

[dberlin at dberlin dot org]

------- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-01-28 17:22 -------
Subject: Re:  missing transformations lead to
 poorly optimized code



On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk wrote:

>
> ------- Additional Comments From jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk  2005-01-28 16:31 -------
>
>> You could try "gfortran -O3 -mtune=pentium4  -ffast-math -mfpmath=sse
>> -ftree-loop-linear -ftree-vectorize yourcode.f90" and see if it helps.
>
> Unhappily, seems to make things slower:
>
> multgen/basic_mult>  gfortran -O3 -mtune=pentium4  -ffast-math -mfpmath=sse
> -ftree-loop-linear -ftree-vectorize mult.f90
> mult.f90:0: warning: SSE instruction set disabled, using 387 arithmetics

You'd need -msse2 or -msse (or is it -march=pentium4 that enables these?)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14741