* [Bug testsuite/102861] [12 regression] gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-16.c fails after r12-4526
2021-10-20 18:19 [Bug testsuite/102861] New: [12 regression] gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-16.c fails after r12-4526 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-10-20 18:22 ` aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-10-20 19:41 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-10-20 18:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102861
--- Comment #1 from Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Similarly to 102860.
The referenced patch reduces the amount of threaded paths, not increase them.
This actually looks like another pass hiccuping because it was expecting a
threaded path that is no longer there.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug testsuite/102861] [12 regression] gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-16.c fails after r12-4526
2021-10-20 18:19 [Bug testsuite/102861] New: [12 regression] gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-16.c fails after r12-4526 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-10-20 18:22 ` [Bug testsuite/102861] " aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-10-20 19:41 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-10-21 6:28 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-10-20 19:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102861
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #1)
> Similarly to 102860.
>
> The referenced patch reduces the amount of threaded paths, not increase
> them. This actually looks like another pass hiccuping because it was
> expecting a threaded path that is no longer there.
The commit changed vect/bb-slp-16.c by a lot ...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug testsuite/102861] [12 regression] gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-16.c fails after r12-4526
2021-10-20 18:19 [Bug testsuite/102861] New: [12 regression] gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-16.c fails after r12-4526 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-10-20 18:22 ` [Bug testsuite/102861] " aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-10-20 19:41 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-10-21 6:28 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-10-21 7:12 ` aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-10-21 6:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102861
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Yeah, I think these kind of testsuite changes are no good.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug testsuite/102861] [12 regression] gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-16.c fails after r12-4526
2021-10-20 18:19 [Bug testsuite/102861] New: [12 regression] gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-16.c fails after r12-4526 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2021-10-21 6:28 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-10-21 7:12 ` aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-10-21 7:50 ` rguenther at suse dot de
` (5 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-10-21 7:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102861
--- Comment #4 from Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> Yeah, I think these kind of testsuite changes are no good.
The loop threading restrictions disallow a couple jump threads (rotating the
loop and crossing the loop header without exiting the loop). The test was
depending on these invalid threads to trigger the "optimized: basic block"
diagnostic. Jeff suggested manually rotating the loop to continue testing the
SLP functionality.
Is there something else we could do?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug testsuite/102861] [12 regression] gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-16.c fails after r12-4526
2021-10-20 18:19 [Bug testsuite/102861] New: [12 regression] gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-16.c fails after r12-4526 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2021-10-21 7:12 ` aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-10-21 7:50 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2021-10-21 7:50 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: rguenther at suse dot de @ 2021-10-21 7:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102861
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Thu, 21 Oct 2021, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102861
>
> --- Comment #4 from Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> > Yeah, I think these kind of testsuite changes are no good.
>
> The loop threading restrictions disallow a couple jump threads (rotating the
> loop and crossing the loop header without exiting the loop). The test was
> depending on these invalid threads to trigger the "optimized: basic block"
> diagnostic. Jeff suggested manually rotating the loop to continue testing the
> SLP functionality.
>
> Is there something else we could do?
Look what exactly is missing and restore that - testcases are written
from real-world code that we expect to optimize, adjusting them to
hide the fact that we don't any longer is not good.
Even XFAIL would have been better.
That said, loop header copying is supposed to do the rotation.
Note what I see on the unchanged testcase is that we now loop vectorize
which is great (and obviously no BB vectorization opportunity remains).
So a different fix would be to simply add
/* Avoid loop vectorization. */
/* { dg-additional-options "-fno-tree-loop-vectorize" } */
which makes the testcase PASS again (bonus for adding a variant
of the testcase that verifies we loop vectorize this).
Let me do all this for you.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug testsuite/102861] [12 regression] gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-16.c fails after r12-4526
2021-10-20 18:19 [Bug testsuite/102861] New: [12 regression] gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-16.c fails after r12-4526 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2021-10-21 7:50 ` rguenther at suse dot de
@ 2021-10-21 7:50 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-10-21 7:53 ` aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-10-21 7:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102861
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last reconfirmed| |2021-10-21
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0 |1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug testsuite/102861] [12 regression] gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-16.c fails after r12-4526
2021-10-20 18:19 [Bug testsuite/102861] New: [12 regression] gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-16.c fails after r12-4526 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2021-10-21 7:50 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-10-21 7:53 ` aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-10-21 7:55 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-10-21 7:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102861
--- Comment #6 from Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> > Is there something else we could do?
>
> Look what exactly is missing and restore that - testcases are written
> from real-world code that we expect to optimize, adjusting them to
> hide the fact that we don't any longer is not good.
>
> Even XFAIL would have been better.
Heh. That was my original suggestion, but I was vetoed :).
>
> That said, loop header copying is supposed to do the rotation.
>
> Note what I see on the unchanged testcase is that we now loop vectorize
> which is great (and obviously no BB vectorization opportunity remains).
> So a different fix would be to simply add
>
> /* Avoid loop vectorization. */
> /* { dg-additional-options "-fno-tree-loop-vectorize" } */
>
> which makes the testcase PASS again (bonus for adding a variant
> of the testcase that verifies we loop vectorize this).
>
> Let me do all this for you.
Thanks so much!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug testsuite/102861] [12 regression] gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-16.c fails after r12-4526
2021-10-20 18:19 [Bug testsuite/102861] New: [12 regression] gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-16.c fails after r12-4526 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2021-10-21 7:53 ` aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-10-21 7:55 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-10-21 8:03 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-10-21 8:03 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-10-21 7:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102861
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Btw,
i = N;
if (i > 0)
{
do
{
*pout++ = *pin++ + a;
*pout++ = *pin++ + a;
*pout++ = *pin++ + a;
*pout++ = *pin++ + a;
*pout++ = *pin++ + a;
*pout++ = *pin++ + a;
*pout++ = *pin++ + a;
*pout++ = *pin++ + a;
if (arr[i] = i)
a = i;
else
a = 2;
}
while (i < N);
that was obviously bogus - you wanted if (N > 0) and initialize i to zero ...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug testsuite/102861] [12 regression] gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-16.c fails after r12-4526
2021-10-20 18:19 [Bug testsuite/102861] New: [12 regression] gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-16.c fails after r12-4526 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2021-10-21 7:55 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-10-21 8:03 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-10-21 8:03 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-10-21 8:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102861
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener <rguenth@gcc.gnu.org>:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d438dd2523a35e073eed04d146f1e73e2514d93d
commit r12-4593-gd438dd2523a35e073eed04d146f1e73e2514d93d
Author: Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
Date: Thu Oct 21 10:00:27 2021 +0200
testsuite/102861 - adjust gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-16.c change
This reverts the bogus previous change causing runtime failures
and instead realizes that we now have the loop condition
if-converted and the BB vectorization opportunity realized during
the loop vectorization pass.
2021-10-21 Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
PR testsuite/102861
* gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-16.c: Revert previous change, scan
the vect dump instead.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug testsuite/102861] [12 regression] gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-16.c fails after r12-4526
2021-10-20 18:19 [Bug testsuite/102861] New: [12 regression] gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-16.c fails after r12-4526 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2021-10-21 8:03 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-10-21 8:03 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-10-21 8:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102861
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread