* [Bug tree-optimization/38968] Complex matrix product is not vectorized
2009-01-25 16:52 [Bug middle-end/38968] New: Complex matrix product is not vectorized dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
@ 2009-01-25 17:33 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-01-26 11:15 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-01-25 17:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-25 17:33 -------
Confirmed. Note the patch mentioned does not try to address any issue present
in the testcase.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
Severity|normal |enhancement
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Component|middle-end |tree-optimization
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Keywords| |missed-optimization
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2009-01-25 17:33:10
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38968
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/38968] Complex matrix product is not vectorized
2009-01-25 16:52 [Bug middle-end/38968] New: Complex matrix product is not vectorized dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
2009-01-25 17:33 ` [Bug tree-optimization/38968] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-01-26 11:15 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-01-26 13:10 ` irar at il dot ibm dot com
` (9 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-01-26 11:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-26 11:15 -------
This happens because ivcanon introduces an induction variable that counts
from 2000 to 1. This "confuses" data-ref analysis and we get
base_address: a_24(D)
offset from base address: (<unnamed-signed:64>)
((<unnamed-unsigned:64>) pretmp.28_148 * 16000)
constant offset from base address: -15996
step: 8
aligned to: 128
base_object: IMAGPART_EXPR <(*a_24(D))[0]>
symbol tag: SMT.12
notice the negative constant offset from base address. This in turn
confuses the vectorizer alignment analysis - but only because the alignment
of the base object is known. We hit (with misalign == -15996, alignment == 16)
/* Modulo alignment. */
misalign = size_binop (TRUNC_MOD_EXPR, misalign, alignment);
if (!host_integerp (misalign, 1))
{
/* Negative or overflowed misalignment value. */
if (vect_print_dump_info (REPORT_DETAILS))
fprintf (vect_dump, "unexpected misalign value");
return false;
}
and the modulo is -12.
Now, I wonder why we do not just use alignment + misalign in that case.
I have a patch.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2009-01-25 17:33:10 |2009-01-26 11:15:23
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38968
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/38968] Complex matrix product is not vectorized
2009-01-25 16:52 [Bug middle-end/38968] New: Complex matrix product is not vectorized dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
2009-01-25 17:33 ` [Bug tree-optimization/38968] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-01-26 11:15 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-01-26 13:10 ` irar at il dot ibm dot com
2009-01-26 13:25 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: irar at il dot ibm dot com @ 2009-01-26 13:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from irar at il dot ibm dot com 2009-01-26 13:09 -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> Now, I wonder why we do not just use alignment + misalign in that case.
I think you are right.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38968
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/38968] Complex matrix product is not vectorized
2009-01-25 16:52 [Bug middle-end/38968] New: Complex matrix product is not vectorized dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2009-01-26 13:10 ` irar at il dot ibm dot com
@ 2009-01-26 13:25 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-01-26 14:21 ` howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu
` (7 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-01-26 13:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-26 13:25 -------
Patch posted.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
URL| |http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
| |patches/2009-
| |01/msg01271.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38968
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/38968] Complex matrix product is not vectorized
2009-01-25 16:52 [Bug middle-end/38968] New: Complex matrix product is not vectorized dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2009-01-26 13:25 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-01-26 14:21 ` howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu
2009-01-26 14:23 ` rguenther at suse dot de
` (6 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu @ 2009-01-26 14:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2009-01-26 14:21 -------
Is the fix for this PR targeted for gcc 4.4.0 or gcc 4.5 stage 1?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38968
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/38968] Complex matrix product is not vectorized
2009-01-25 16:52 [Bug middle-end/38968] New: Complex matrix product is not vectorized dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2009-01-26 14:21 ` howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu
@ 2009-01-26 14:23 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2009-02-01 10:37 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
` (5 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: rguenther at suse dot de @ 2009-01-26 14:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-01-26 14:23 -------
Subject: Re: Complex matrix product is not
vectorized
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009, howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu wrote:
> ------- Comment #5 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2009-01-26 14:21 -------
> Is the fix for this PR targeted for gcc 4.4.0 or gcc 4.5 stage 1?
stage1, it is an enhancement.
Richard.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38968
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/38968] Complex matrix product is not vectorized
2009-01-25 16:52 [Bug middle-end/38968] New: Complex matrix product is not vectorized dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2009-01-26 14:23 ` rguenther at suse dot de
@ 2009-02-01 10:37 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
2009-02-01 10:49 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr @ 2009-02-01 10:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-02-01 10:37 -------
Created an attachment (id=17220)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17220&action=view)
testin complex matrix multiplication
Comment #0 is not fully accurate. With some more testsing with the
attached code, I get:
- gcc 4.3.3: no vectorization,
- gcc 4.4.0 (trunk) : vectorization for odd n,
- gcc 4.4.0 + patch from
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-01/msg01271.html:
vectorization for all values of n (in the tested range).
The attached code also checked the result of the matrix product which is
OK. Now as shown below (in flops/clock cycle), the timings are quite
disapointing (-m64 -O3 -ffast-math -funroll-loops): for odd n, the
vectorized code is slower than the nonvectorized one, for even n, the code
is faster with vectorization, but still significantly slower than with
ifort.
n 4.3.3 trunk trunk ifort
+patch 11.0
124 1.33 1.36 1.81 2.61
125 1.37 1.32 1.32 2.20
126 1.36 1.37 1.79 2.55
127 1.37 1.31 1.31 2.22
128 1.38 1.39 1.86 2.64
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38968
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/38968] Complex matrix product is not vectorized
2009-01-25 16:52 [Bug middle-end/38968] New: Complex matrix product is not vectorized dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2009-02-01 10:37 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
@ 2009-02-01 10:49 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-02-01 10:58 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
` (3 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-02-01 10:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-01 10:49 -------
This is somewhat expected. We vectorize the complex product using vectors
of real parts and vectors of complex parts of two complex numbers (so we
are not using the fancy haddsub SSE codes). Did you try enabling SSE3 btw?
Can you post the ifort assembly of the loop?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38968
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/38968] Complex matrix product is not vectorized
2009-01-25 16:52 [Bug middle-end/38968] New: Complex matrix product is not vectorized dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2009-02-01 10:49 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-02-01 10:58 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
2009-02-01 11:11 ` rguenther at suse dot de
` (2 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr @ 2009-02-01 10:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-02-01 10:58 -------
> Did you try enabling SSE3 btw?
No. How do I get the enabled SSE* by default?
> Can you post the ifort assembly of the loop?
L_B1.14: # Preds L_B1.14 L_B1.13
lea (%rsi,%r9,8), %r11 #
lea mymatmul_$A.0.1(%rip), %r10 #27.33
movaps (%r10,%r11), %xmm2 #27.33
movaps 16(%r10,%r11), %xmm4 #27.33
movaps %xmm0, %xmm3 #27.40
mulps %xmm2, %xmm3 #27.40
shufps $177, %xmm2, %xmm2 #27.40
lea (%rdx,%r9,8), %r15 #
lea mymatmul_$C.0.1(%rip), %r14 #27.24
movaps %xmm0, %xmm5 #27.40
addq $4, %r9 #26.12
mulps %xmm1, %xmm2 #27.40
cmpq $128, %r9 #26.12
addsubps %xmm2, %xmm3 #27.40
addps (%r14,%r15), %xmm3 #27.15
movaps %xmm3, (%r14,%r15) #27.15
mulps %xmm4, %xmm5 #27.40
shufps $177, %xmm4, %xmm4 #27.40
mulps %xmm1, %xmm4 #27.40
addsubps %xmm4, %xmm5 #27.40
addps 16(%r14,%r15), %xmm5 #27.15
movaps %xmm5, 16(%r14,%r15) #27.15
jl L_B1.14 # Prob 99% #26.12
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38968
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/38968] Complex matrix product is not vectorized
2009-01-25 16:52 [Bug middle-end/38968] New: Complex matrix product is not vectorized dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2009-02-01 10:58 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
@ 2009-02-01 11:11 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2009-03-28 10:05 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-03-28 10:06 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: rguenther at suse dot de @ 2009-02-01 11:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-02-01 11:11 -------
Subject: Re: Complex matrix product is not
vectorized
On Sun, 1 Feb 2009, dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr wrote:
> ------- Comment #9 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-02-01 10:58 -------
> > Did you try enabling SSE3 btw?
>
> No. How do I get the enabled SSE* by default?
You can enable SSE3 manually with -msse3, or automatically enable what
your local CPU can do with -march=native.
Richard.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38968
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/38968] Complex matrix product is not vectorized
2009-01-25 16:52 [Bug middle-end/38968] New: Complex matrix product is not vectorized dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2009-02-01 11:11 ` rguenther at suse dot de
@ 2009-03-28 10:05 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-03-28 10:06 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-03-28 10:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 10:05 -------
Subject: Bug 38968
Author: rguenth
Date: Sat Mar 28 10:05:24 2009
New Revision: 145171
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=145171
Log:
2009-03-28 Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de>
PR tree-optimization/38968
* tree-vect-analyze.c (vect_compute_data_ref_alignment):
Use FLOOR_MOD_EXPR to compute misalignment.
* gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-pr38968.f90: New testcase.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-pr38968.f90
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/tree-vect-analyze.c
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38968
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/38968] Complex matrix product is not vectorized
2009-01-25 16:52 [Bug middle-end/38968] New: Complex matrix product is not vectorized dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2009-03-28 10:05 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-03-28 10:06 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-03-28 10:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-28 10:06 -------
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38968
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread