public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/103641] [11/12 regression] Severe compile time regression in SLP vectorize step
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2022 08:13:18 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-103641-4-PeFlhAhrTL@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-103641-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103641

--- Comment #21 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Sat, 22 Jan 2022, roger at nextmovesoftware dot com wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103641
> 
> --- Comment #20 from Roger Sayle <roger at nextmovesoftware dot com> ---
> IMHO, the problem is in tree-vect-patterns.cc's vect_synth_mult_by_constant.
> The comment above line 3054 reads:
>   /* Use MAX_COST here as we don't want to limit the sequence on rtx costs.
>      The vectorizer's benefit analysis will decide whether it's beneficial
>      to do this.  */
>   bool possible = choose_mult_variant (mode, hwval, &alg, &variant, MAX_COST);
> 
> By using MAX_COST here, synth_mult is being allowed to take an unbounded
> amount of time, considering all possible permutations/implementations to
> find an optimal synthetic multiply sequence.  A more pragmatic bound might
> be to compare the target's vector_multiply cost, or failing that use an
> arbitrary, but reasonable limit, say COSTS_N_INSNS(8) machine instructions.
> In the worst case, if it takes 100 instructions to do a vector multiply,
> then the loop probably shouldn't be vectorized.

Is there a way to switch synth_mult to number of insn based costs?
Like using -Os metrics?  And would that improve things here?

I agree that an ubound search is bad but as the comment explains
we want to delay costing to the vectorizer cost evaluation time ...

But sure, setting an upper bound to limit compile-time sounds still
reasonable.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-01-24  8:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-12-10  9:03 [Bug rtl-optimization/103641] New: [aarch64][11 " husseydevin at gmail dot com
2021-12-10  9:25 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/103641] " marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-10  9:37 ` [Bug tree-optimization/103641] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-10  9:43 ` [Bug tree-optimization/103641] [11/12 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-10  9:46 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-10  9:56 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-10 10:01 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-10 10:02 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-10 10:03 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-10 10:06 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-10 10:08 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-10 10:09 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-10 10:12 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-10 10:12 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-10 10:14 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-10 10:15 ` [Bug middle-end/103641] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-10 10:24 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-10 10:28 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-10 13:17 ` roger at nextmovesoftware dot com
2021-12-10 13:19 ` husseydevin at gmail dot com
2022-01-18 14:10 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-22 14:30 ` roger at nextmovesoftware dot com
2022-01-24  8:13 ` rguenther at suse dot de [this message]
2022-01-24 16:49 ` roger at nextmovesoftware dot com
2022-01-24 17:02 ` roger at nextmovesoftware dot com
2022-01-25  7:23 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-25  7:52 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-04  7:26 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-04 10:30 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-04 10:43 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-04 11:08 ` tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-07 12:19 ` tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-07 15:05 ` [Bug middle-end/103641] [11 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-08  8:08 ` tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-08  8:13 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-08  8:15 ` tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-16  8:22 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-16  8:23 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-103641-4-PeFlhAhrTL@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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).