[Bug tree-optimization/43423] gcc should vectorize this loop through if-conversion

[Bug tree-optimization/43423] gcc should vectorize this loop through if-conversion

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43423

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
           Severity|normal                      |enhancement
                 CC|                            |pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The improvement in comment #12 is something which I am working on.

[Bug tree-optimization/43423] gcc should vectorize this loop through if-conversion

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43423

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED
   Target Milestone|---                         |7.0
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED

--- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
So GCC 7 is able to optimize this loop fully and split it into two at -O3
(r7-3966) after my comment #12.

Also starting with GCC 7, we were able to vectorize the loop at -O2
-ftree-vectorize since tree-if-conv.c can do the ifconversion (I don't have the
revision).

So this is all fixed anyways.

[Bug tree-optimization/43423] gcc should vectorize this loop through if-conversion

[spop at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #11 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-05-25 23:33 -------
This is not a IV type problem: the number of iterations may be zero when mid ==
0 or mid == n, so the number of iterations analysis has a condition under which
niter may_be_zero.

I sent out a patch that makes niter return a COND_EXPR
instead of a chrec_dont_know:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-05/msg01927.html

With that patch I now get 
  note: not vectorized: data ref analysis failed D.2726_51 = a[var.9_55];


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43423

[Bug tree-optimization/43423] gcc should vectorize this loop through if-conversion

[spop at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #10 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-05-24 23:02 -------
note: not vectorized: number of iterations cannot be computed.

Graphite has a problem with the generation of induction variables types
that makes the code harder to analyze after Graphite.  I will try to get this
fixed to make this loop vectorized with the iteration range splitting that
Graphite does by default. 

Sebastian


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43423

[Bug tree-optimization/43423] gcc should vectorize this loop through if-conversion

[changpeng dot fang at amd dot com]

------- Comment #9 from changpeng dot fang at amd dot com  2010-05-24 22:47 -------
(In reply to comment #8)
> -fgraphite-identity does iteration splitting for this case.

Do you know why it could not be vectorized after iteration 
range splitting?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43423

[Bug tree-optimization/43423] gcc should vectorize this loop through if-conversion

[spop at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #8 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-05-24 22:44 -------
-fgraphite-identity does iteration splitting for this case.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43423

[Bug tree-optimization/43423] gcc should vectorize this loop through if-conversion

[changpeng dot fang at amd dot com]

------- Comment #7 from changpeng dot fang at amd dot com  2010-05-07 21:41 -------
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > Subject: Re:  gcc should vectorize this loop 
> >         through "iteration range splitting"
> > You mean that the problem is the if-conversion of the stores
> > "a[i] = ..."
> 
> If we rewrite the code like:
> int a[100], b[100], c[100];
> 
> void foo(int n, int mid)
> {
>   int i;
>   for(i=0; i<n; i++)
>     {
>       int t;
>       int ai = a[i], bi = b[i], ci = c[i];
>       if (i < mid)
>         t = ai + bi;
>       else
>         t = ai + ci;
>       a[i] = t;
>     }
> }
> 
> --- CUT ---
> This gets vectorized as we produce an if-cvt first.
> 

There are both correctness and performance issues in the re-written code.
b[i] or c[i] may not be executed in the original loop.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43423

[Bug tree-optimization/43423] gcc should vectorize this loop through if-conversion

[spop at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #6 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-08 17:47 -------
I changed the title of this bug to match the comments in the PR:
we should vectorize this loop using if-conversion, and not "iteration
range splitting".

Also note that in general, by doing an "iteration range splitting" the data 
locality in the two loops could be worse than in the if-converted loop.


-- 

spop at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|gcc should vectorize this   |gcc should vectorize this
                   |loop through "iteration     |loop through if-conversion
                   |range splitting"            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43423