From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id A3025385842B; Tue, 11 Oct 2022 11:14:31 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org A3025385842B
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1665486871;
	bh=z+lHvVSx/zgac2XM/XWxrJ2KRSQuw1Q8j7ATgRdyVdo=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=KcVqEHyb0FSWw3oY/E5iiutSfjT5sAASptuZiXyEKOlC+lU2NRhOfS1Tdd3sZbDVt
	 N/nSLUzL10q1r8lLKWvxu6yV7USGfeLtE4d9HLUCrWK74v2/8L57CBGthRM/XqGr3U
	 tfChws/Lzp4oh/vYFj/bowUccIrB+NT9Gip8Rvz4=
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/107093] AVX512 mask operations not simplified in fully
 masked loop
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2022 11:14:31 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-107093-4-ytoW8mafdq@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-107093-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-107093-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D107093

--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Tue, 11 Oct 2022, crazylht at gmail dot com wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D107093
>=20
> --- Comment #8 from Hongtao.liu <crazylht at gmail dot com> ---
>=20
> >=20
> > One downside for a fully masked body is that we're using masked stores
> > which usually have higher latency due to the "merge" semantics which
> > means an extra memory input + merge operation.  Not sure if modern
> > uArchs can optimize the all-ones mask case, the vectorizer, for
> Also I guess mask store won't be store forward even load is inside the ma=
sk
> store.

I guess the masking of the store is resolved in the load-store unit
and not by splitting the operation into a load, modify, store because
that cannot easily hide exceptions.  So yes, a masked store in the
store buffer likely cannot act as forwarding source (though the
actual mask should be fully resolved there) since the actual
merging will take place later.=