public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/104408] SLP discovery fails due to -Ofast rewriting Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2022 08:55:55 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-104408-4-cqp9rdi7NH@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-104408-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104408 Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |53947 CC| |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- match.pd just does canonicalization here. SLP discovery could handle this in the existing swap operands or reassoc support but I guess the desire here is to pull out a Complex SLP pattern. So what should really be done in the end is get rid of the restriction during SLP build that a node has to be from a single interleaving chain. We can handle {d[i].i, c[i].r} as permute of {d[i].r, d[i].i} and {c[i].r, c[i].i} during discovery. Of course doing that interferes with the swap-operands logic which when successful will produce a more optimal initial SLP graph but that relies on the recursive SLP discovery to first fail. Forming an optimal SLP graph is likely NP complete so we have to employ heuristics to some extent. So - no perfect idea yet how to reliably match a Complex pattern here but trying to attack this from the match.pd side sounds wrong. Referenced Bugs: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947 [Bug 53947] [meta-bug] vectorizer missed-optimizations
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-02-07 8:55 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2022-02-06 9:13 [Bug tree-optimization/104408] New: " tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-02-06 9:43 ` [Bug tree-optimization/104408] " tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-02-06 12:41 ` tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-02-07 8:55 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org [this message] 2022-02-07 8:56 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-02-07 9:58 ` tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-02-07 10:55 ` 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-104408-4-cqp9rdi7NH@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: linkBe 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).