[Bug fortran/32380] misaligned stores don't get vectorized

[Bug fortran/32380] misaligned stores don't get vectorized

[tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32380

Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot       |tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
                   |gnu.org                     |

--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-02-05 23:56:19 UTC ---
This is fixed, the best way would be to add the test case and close.

Not tonight though.

[Bug fortran/32380] misaligned stores don't get vectorized

[tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32380

--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-02-08 19:53:59 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed Feb  8 19:53:56 2012
New Revision: 184017

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184017
Log:
2012-02-08  Thomas Koenig  <tkoenig@gcc.gnu.org>

        PR fortran/32380
        * gfortran.dg/vect/pr32380.f90:  New test.


Added:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/pr32380.f
Modified:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog

[Bug fortran/32380] misaligned stores don't get vectorized

[tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32380

Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED

--- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-02-08 19:57:55 UTC ---
Test case committed, closing.

[Bug fortran/32380] misaligned stores don't get vectorized

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32380

--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-02-09 12:13:25 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb  9 12:13:18 2012
New Revision: 184043

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184043
Log:
    PR fortran/32380
    * gfortran.dg/vect/pr32380.f: Use dg-additional-options instead
    of dg-options.

Modified:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/pr32380.f

[Bug fortran/32380] misaligned stores don't get vectorized

[tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32380

--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-02-20 17:16:38 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Feb 20 17:16:33 2012
New Revision: 184398

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184398
Log:
2012-02-13  Thomas Koenig  <tkoenig@gcc.gnu.org>

    PR testsuite/52229
    PR fortran/32380
    * gfortran.dg/vect/pr32380.f:  XFAIL on PowerPC and ia-64.


Modified:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/pr32380.f

[Bug fortran/32380] misaligned stores don't get vectorized

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32380

--- Comment #11 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-06-06 12:53:35 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jun  6 12:53:30 2012
New Revision: 188266

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188266
Log:
2012-06-06  Richard Guenther  <rguenther@suse.de>

    PR testsuite/32380
    * gfortran.dg/vect/pr32380.f: Adjust number of expected vectorized
    loops.

Modified:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/pr32380.f

[Bug fortran/32380] misaligned stores don't get vectorized

[dorit at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #5 from dorit at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-07-15 19:02 -------
(In reply to comment #4)
> The arrays in this example all have compatible alignment.  This is one of the
> advantages many compilers see in the use of the "old-fashioned" block COMMON.
> In the usual case lft==1 all arrays in COMMON are aligned, with the size
> declarations given here.  So it is undesirable to split the loop to handle
> alignment.

ah, ok. so the real issue here is to make the vectorizer notice that all these
accesses have the same alignment (we have a way in the vectorizer to mark
accesses that have the same alignment even if the alignment itself is unknown).
to be continued...


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32380

[Bug fortran/32380] misaligned stores don't get vectorized

[tprince at computer dot org]

------- Comment #4 from tprince at computer dot org  2007-07-15 18:43 -------
The arrays in this example all have compatible alignment.  This is one of the
advantages many compilers see in the use of the "old-fashioned" block COMMON.
In the usual case lft==1 all arrays in COMMON are aligned, with the size
declarations given here.  So it is undesirable to split the loop to handle
alignment.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32380

[Bug fortran/32380] misaligned stores don't get vectorized

[dorit at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #3 from dorit at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-07-15 18:31 -------
> With loop distribution we could vectorize these loops using peeling to handle
> misaligned stores (multiple stores make peeling for alignment insufficient
> here).

wonder what the loop-distribution pass in the graphite branch can do with these
loops (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-05/msg01130.html)


-- 

dorit at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |spop at gcc dot gnu dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32380

[Bug fortran/32380] misaligned stores don't get vectorized

[irar at il dot ibm dot com]

------- Comment #2 from irar at il dot ibm dot com  2007-07-11 14:50 -------
I don't get any dependence test failures on current mainline. I think they were
solved by Zdenek's rewrite of data-refs' analysis, since I can still see those
failures on autovect-branch (with old data-refs' analysis):

unal.f:222: note: not vectorized: can't determine dependence between  
csfsavloc.savfrc[D.2175_919] and csfsavloc.savfrc[D.2388_922]
unal.f:159: note: not vectorized: can't determine dependence between
aux01loc.fm11[D.2175_330] and aux01loc.fm11[D.2175_330]
unal.f:172: note: not vectorized: can't determine dependence between
aux01loc.ft11[D.2175_439] and aux01loc.ft11[D.2175_439]

On the mainline unal.f:222 gets vectorized now, and unal.f:159 and unal.f:172
are not vectorized because unsupported unaligned stores:

unal.f:222: note: LOOP VECTORIZED.(get_loop_exit_condition
unal.f:198: note: LOOP VECTORIZED.

unal.f:209: note: not vectorized: unsupported unaligned store.
unal.f:159: note: not vectorized: unsupported unaligned store.
unal.f:172: note: not vectorized: unsupported unaligned store.
unal.f:138: note: not vectorized: unsupported unaligned store.
unal.f:127: note: not vectorized: unsupported unaligned store.

With loop distribution we could vectorize these loops using peeling to handle
misaligned stores (multiple stores make peeling for alignment insufficient
here).
Misaligned stores support is on the top of our TODO list in Wiki (see
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/VectorizationTasks)...

I am adding "missed-optimization" keyword and changing the summary.

Thanks,
Ira


-- 

irar at il dot ibm dot com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |irar at il dot ibm dot com
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
           Keywords|                            |missed-optimization
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2007-07-11 14:50:36
               date|                            |
            Summary|reports "unaligned store"   |misaligned stores don't get
                   |and can't determine         |vectorized
                   |dependence                  |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32380