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/115340] Loop/SLP vectorization possible inefficiency Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2024 08:06:40 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-115340-4-oNQh8NlFzW@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-115340-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115340 Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Last reconfirmed| |2024-06-04 Blocks| |53947 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Keywords| |missed-optimization Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- The issue is that the DRs for the loads tmp[0][i] and tmp[1][i] are not related - they are off different base pointers. At the moment we are not merging unrelated "groups" (even though the loads are not marked as grouped) into one SLP node. The stores are not considered "grouped" because they have gaps. With SLP-ification you'd get four instances and the same code-gen as now. To do better we'd have to improve the store dataref analysis to see that a vectorization factor of four would "close" the gaps, or more generally support store groups with gaps. Stores with gaps can be handled by masking for example. You get the store side handled when using -fno-tree-loop-vectorize to get basic-block vectorization after unrolling the loop. But you still run into the issue that we do not combine from different load groups during SLP discovery. That's another angle you can attack; during greedy discovery we also do not consider splitting the store but instead build the loads from scalars which is of course less than optimal. Also since we do not re-process the built vector CTORs for further basic-block vectorization opportunities. Referenced Bugs: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947 [Bug 53947] [meta-bug] vectorizer missed-optimizations
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-06-04 8:06 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2024-06-04 7:46 [Bug tree-optimization/115340] New: " rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-06-04 8:06 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
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-115340-4-oNQh8NlFzW@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).