* [Bug tree-optimization/49006] [4.6/4.7 Regression] Missed vectorization due to revision 167531
2011-05-15 18:45 [Bug tree-optimization/49006] New: [4.6/4.7 Regression] Missed vectorization due to revision 167531 dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
@ 2011-05-16 9:30 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2011-05-16 10:29 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (11 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: rguenther at suse dot de @ 2011-05-16 9:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49006
--- Comment #1 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> 2011-05-16 08:57:46 UTC ---
On Sun, 15 May 2011, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49006
>
> Summary: [4.6/4.7 Regression] Missed vectorization due to
> revision 167531
> Product: gcc
> Version: 4.6.0
> Status: UNCONFIRMED
> Severity: normal
> Priority: P3
> Component: tree-optimization
> AssignedTo: unassigned@gcc.gnu.org
> ReportedBy: dominiq@lps.ens.fr
> CC: rguenth@gcc.gnu.org
>
>
> Created attachment 24250
> --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24250
> source code
>
> On x86_64-apple-darwin10 the attached code (an avatar of the polyhedron test
> induct.f90) is no longer properly vectorized after revision 167531:
The patch changes inliner heuristics only.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/49006] [4.6/4.7 Regression] Missed vectorization due to revision 167531
2011-05-15 18:45 [Bug tree-optimization/49006] New: [4.6/4.7 Regression] Missed vectorization due to revision 167531 dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2011-05-16 9:30 ` [Bug tree-optimization/49006] " rguenther at suse dot de
@ 2011-05-16 10:29 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2011-05-16 10:50 ` rguenther at suse dot de
` (10 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr @ 2011-05-16 10:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49006
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> 2011-05-16 09:24:28 UTC ---
> The patch changes inliner heuristics only.
Yes, but the vectorization of induct.f90 is very sensitive to inlining: see
pr34265. Did you checked the vectorization of the test case on your favorite
platform?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/49006] [4.6/4.7 Regression] Missed vectorization due to revision 167531
2011-05-15 18:45 [Bug tree-optimization/49006] New: [4.6/4.7 Regression] Missed vectorization due to revision 167531 dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2011-05-16 9:30 ` [Bug tree-optimization/49006] " rguenther at suse dot de
2011-05-16 10:29 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
@ 2011-05-16 10:50 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2011-05-16 11:39 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: rguenther at suse dot de @ 2011-05-16 10:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49006
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> 2011-05-16 10:41:58 UTC ---
On Mon, 16 May 2011, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49006
>
> --- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> 2011-05-16 09:24:28 UTC ---
> > The patch changes inliner heuristics only.
>
> Yes, but the vectorization of induct.f90 is very sensitive to inlining: see
> pr34265. Did you checked the vectorization of the test case on your favorite
> platform?
I did not check it at all. The patch causes more inlining, making the
cost of x*x the same with/without -ffast-math.
Richard.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/49006] [4.6/4.7 Regression] Missed vectorization due to revision 167531
2011-05-15 18:45 [Bug tree-optimization/49006] New: [4.6/4.7 Regression] Missed vectorization due to revision 167531 dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2011-05-16 10:50 ` rguenther at suse dot de
@ 2011-05-16 11:39 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-05-19 12:53 ` irar at il dot ibm.com
` (8 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-05-16 11:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49006
Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/49006] [4.6/4.7 Regression] Missed vectorization due to revision 167531
2011-05-15 18:45 [Bug tree-optimization/49006] New: [4.6/4.7 Regression] Missed vectorization due to revision 167531 dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2011-05-16 11:39 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-05-19 12:53 ` irar at il dot ibm.com
2011-05-22 12:46 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (7 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: irar at il dot ibm.com @ 2011-05-19 12:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49006
Ira Rosen <irar at il dot ibm.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |irar at il dot ibm.com
--- Comment #4 from Ira Rosen <irar at il dot ibm.com> 2011-05-19 12:33:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
The problem is you don't see:
> induct_v4.f90:1766: note: LOOP VECTORIZED.
> induct_v4.f90:2177: note: LOOP VECTORIZED.
anymore, right?
With -Ofast there are no such loops, 1766 and 2177, they are probably being
unrolled.
I see these loops with -O2 -ftree-vectorize, and they are indeed not
vectorized, but they are not vectorized by previous version as well, AFAIU.
Ira
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/49006] [4.6/4.7 Regression] Missed vectorization due to revision 167531
2011-05-15 18:45 [Bug tree-optimization/49006] New: [4.6/4.7 Regression] Missed vectorization due to revision 167531 dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2011-05-19 12:53 ` irar at il dot ibm.com
@ 2011-05-22 12:46 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2011-06-27 15:36 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr @ 2011-05-22 12:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49006
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> 2011-05-22 12:22:48 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #4)
>
> The problem is you don't see:
> > induct_v4.f90:1766: note: LOOP VECTORIZED.
> > induct_v4.f90:2177: note: LOOP VECTORIZED.
> anymore, right?
>
> With -Ofast there are no such loops, 1766 and 2177, they are probably being
> unrolled.
>
> I see these loops with -O2 -ftree-vectorize, and they are indeed not
> vectorized, but they are not vectorized by previous version as well, AFAIU.
>
> Ira
I have posted at pr34265 a reduced test allowing for twelve variants of the
inner loops in induct.f90.
The vectorization is indeed depending of what the pass_complete_unrolli is
doing. In a perfect world I would expect all these variants be equally
vectorized. I have no idea if this is doable, but I think the minimal quality
of implementation would require that the variants that are not vectorized (with
a very significant impact on the run time) do not depend on the revision and be
predictable along a line "do this, don't do that".
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/49006] [4.6/4.7 Regression] Missed vectorization due to revision 167531
2011-05-15 18:45 [Bug tree-optimization/49006] New: [4.6/4.7 Regression] Missed vectorization due to revision 167531 dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2011-05-22 12:46 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
@ 2011-06-27 15:36 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-08-01 14:45 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-06-27 15:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49006
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.6.1 |4.6.2
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-06-27 12:32:36 UTC ---
GCC 4.6.1 is being released.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/49006] [4.6/4.7 Regression] Missed vectorization due to revision 167531
2011-05-15 18:45 [Bug tree-optimization/49006] New: [4.6/4.7 Regression] Missed vectorization due to revision 167531 dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2011-06-27 15:36 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-08-01 14:45 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-08-01 14:50 ` irar at il dot ibm.com
` (4 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-08-01 14:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49006
Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |missed-optimization
Priority|P3 |P2
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/49006] [4.6/4.7 Regression] Missed vectorization due to revision 167531
2011-05-15 18:45 [Bug tree-optimization/49006] New: [4.6/4.7 Regression] Missed vectorization due to revision 167531 dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2011-08-01 14:45 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-08-01 14:50 ` irar at il dot ibm.com
2011-08-02 8:38 ` rguenther at suse dot de
` (3 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: irar at il dot ibm.com @ 2011-08-01 14:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49006
--- Comment #7 from Ira Rosen <irar at il dot ibm.com> 2011-08-01 14:47:08 UTC ---
I think that this is not really a missed-optimization. It's just that some
loops disappear because of the unrolling.
Ira
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/49006] [4.6/4.7 Regression] Missed vectorization due to revision 167531
2011-05-15 18:45 [Bug tree-optimization/49006] New: [4.6/4.7 Regression] Missed vectorization due to revision 167531 dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2011-08-01 14:50 ` irar at il dot ibm.com
@ 2011-08-02 8:38 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2011-08-02 9:21 ` irar at il dot ibm.com
` (2 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: rguenther at suse dot de @ 2011-08-02 8:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49006
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> 2011-08-02 08:37:28 UTC ---
On Mon, 1 Aug 2011, irar at il dot ibm.com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49006
>
> --- Comment #7 from Ira Rosen <irar at il dot ibm.com> 2011-08-01 14:47:08 UTC ---
> I think that this is not really a missed-optimization. It's just that some
> loops disappear because of the unrolling.
Ah, ok - so SLP vectorization won't print a "vectorized loop X" if it
would vectorize the unrolled variant? (not sure if it easily could)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/49006] [4.6/4.7 Regression] Missed vectorization due to revision 167531
2011-05-15 18:45 [Bug tree-optimization/49006] New: [4.6/4.7 Regression] Missed vectorization due to revision 167531 dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2011-08-02 8:38 ` rguenther at suse dot de
@ 2011-08-02 9:21 ` irar at il dot ibm.com
2011-08-02 9:25 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2011-09-16 16:19 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: irar at il dot ibm.com @ 2011-08-02 9:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49006
--- Comment #9 from Ira Rosen <irar at il dot ibm.com> 2011-08-02 09:21:26 UTC ---
Basic block SLP only prints "basic block vectorized using SLP". But I thought
we are talking about loop vectorization here, since the early unrolling is
applied only if there is an outer loop as well (correct?), so it should be the
same "LOOP VECTORIZED". And I see with on trunk:
induct.f90:1757: note: LOOP VECTORIZED.
induct.f90:2168: note: LOOP VECTORIZED.
and 1757 is the outer loop of 1766, and 2168 is the outer loop of 2177.
These loops are not vectorized with 4.6 though.
Ira
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/49006] [4.6/4.7 Regression] Missed vectorization due to revision 167531
2011-05-15 18:45 [Bug tree-optimization/49006] New: [4.6/4.7 Regression] Missed vectorization due to revision 167531 dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2011-08-02 9:21 ` irar at il dot ibm.com
@ 2011-08-02 9:25 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2011-09-16 16:19 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: rguenther at suse dot de @ 2011-08-02 9:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49006
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> 2011-08-02 09:24:19 UTC ---
On Tue, 2 Aug 2011, irar at il dot ibm.com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49006
>
> --- Comment #9 from Ira Rosen <irar at il dot ibm.com> 2011-08-02 09:21:26 UTC ---
> Basic block SLP only prints "basic block vectorized using SLP". But I thought
> we are talking about loop vectorization here, since the early unrolling is
> applied only if there is an outer loop as well (correct?), so it should be the
Yes.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/49006] [4.6/4.7 Regression] Missed vectorization due to revision 167531
2011-05-15 18:45 [Bug tree-optimization/49006] New: [4.6/4.7 Regression] Missed vectorization due to revision 167531 dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2011-08-02 9:25 ` rguenther at suse dot de
@ 2011-09-16 16:19 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr @ 2011-09-16 16:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49006
Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
--- Comment #11 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> 2011-09-16 15:42:03 UTC ---
This pr (as well as pr34265) seems to have been fixed between revisions 176696
and 177649:
[macbook] lin/test% /opt/gcc/gcc4.7p-176696p1/bin/gfortran -O3 -ffast-math
induct_v4.f90 -ftree-vectorizer-verbose=2
...
induct_v4.f90:1728: note: not vectorized: unsupported use in stmt.
induct_v4.f90:1711: note: LOOP VECTORIZED.
induct_v4.f90:1633: note: LOOP VECTORIZED.
induct_v4.f90:1544: note: created 2 versioning for alias checks.
induct_v4.f90:1544: note: LOOP VECTORIZED.
induct_v4.f90:1449: note: vectorized 3 loops in function.
induct_v4.f90:2095: note: LOOP VECTORIZED.
induct_v4.f90:2018: note: LOOP VECTORIZED.
induct_v4.f90:1925: note: created 2 versioning for alias checks.
induct_v4.f90:1925: note: LOOP VECTORIZED.
induct_v4.f90:1832: note: vectorized 3 loops in function.
...
[macbook] lin/test% time a.out > /dev/null
22.186u 0.023s 0:22.21 99.9% 0+0k 0+3io 0pf+0w
[macbook] lin/test% /opt/gcc/gcc4.7p-177649p2/bin/gfortran -O3 -ffast-math
induct_v4.f90 -ftree-vectorizer-verbose=2
...
induct_v4.f90:1728: note: not vectorized: unsupported data-type complex(kind=8)
induct_v4.f90:1757: note: LOOP VECTORIZED.
induct_v4.f90:1711: note: LOOP VECTORIZED.
induct_v4.f90:1633: note: LOOP VECTORIZED.
induct_v4.f90:1544: note: created 2 versioning for alias checks.
induct_v4.f90:1544: note: LOOP VECTORIZED.
induct_v4.f90:1449: note: vectorized 4 loops in function.
induct_v4.f90:2168: note: LOOP VECTORIZED.
induct_v4.f90:2095: note: LOOP VECTORIZED.
induct_v4.f90:2018: note: LOOP VECTORIZED.
induct_v4.f90:1925: note: created 2 versioning for alias checks.
induct_v4.f90:1925: note: LOOP VECTORIZED.
induct_v4.f90:1832: note: vectorized 4 loops in function.
...
[macbook] lin/test% time a.out > /dev/null
12.657u 0.022s 0:12.68 99.9% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
I am closing this pr as fixed and I'll use pr34265 to track the remaining
issues.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread