From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-459336-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 1549 invoked by alias); 27 Aug 2014 09:58:32 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 1256 invoked by uid 48); 27 Aug 2014 09:58:25 -0000
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/62080] Suboptimal code generation with eigen library
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 09:58:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.8.3
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
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-62080-4-JIsub8MT35@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-62080-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-62080-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2014-08/txt/msg01833.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62080

--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #5)
> With the intrinsics patch, I notice that we don't simplify in gimple either:
> 
>   _40 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<__m128i>(_39);
>   MEM[(__m128i * {ref-all})vec_4(D)] = _40;
>   _60 = MEM[(const double *)vec_4(D)];
>   _61 = MEM[(const double *)vec_4(D) + 8B];
>   _62 = {_60, _61};
>   _63 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<__v4si>(_62);
> 
> (_39 and _63 have the same type)

value-numbering has difficulties in seeing through so much stmts (read:
not implemented) and it doesn't have a way of expressing "partial"
values.  That is, it knows that at MEM[(__m128i * {ref-all})vec_4(D)] we
stored _39 but when value-numbering the partial reads it can't assign
the value _39 to them (as said, "partial" values are not supported).

So one way to optimize this is to special-case the composition
operations and try looking up a proper memory operation.

Another possibility is to value-number compound operations also as
piecewise operations, introducing fake value-numbers (that is,
"lower" everything to component-wise operations internally).

I suppose pattern-matching

>   _60 = MEM[(const double *)vec_4(D)];
>   _61 = MEM[(const double *)vec_4(D) + 8B];
>   _62 = {_60, _61};

and generating a single read (with eventually a permute?) would be
more profitable and easier to implement.