[Bug fortran/62283] New: SSE optimization fails

[Bug fortran/62283] New: SSE optimization fails

[holst at matmech dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283

            Bug ID: 62283
           Summary: SSE optimization fails
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.8.2
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: fortran
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: holst at matmech dot com

If the `value` specifier below is removed, GFortran generates scalar code
instead of vectorized code as it should. 

$ cat saxpy.f
      subroutine saxpy(alpha,x,y)
      value alpha
      real x(4),y(4)
      y(1)=y(1)+alpha*x(1)
      y(2)=y(2)+alpha*x(2)
      y(3)=y(3)+alpha*x(3)
      y(4)=y(4)+alpha*x(4)
end
$ gfortran -S -msse2 -O3 saxpy.f
$ more saxpy.s

[Bug fortran/62283] SSE optimization fails

[holst at matmech dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283

--- Comment #1 from Henrik Holst <holst at matmech dot com> ---
(forgot to indent the end statement above.)

The expected assembler code should be something like:

    movaps    %xmm0, %xmm1
    movups    (%rdi), %xmm0
    shufps    $0, %xmm1, %xmm1
    movups    (%rsi), %xmm2
    mulps    %xmm1, %xmm0
    addps    %xmm2, %xmm0
    movups    %xmm0, (%rsi)
    ret

[Bug fortran/62283] basic-block vectorization fails

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |missed-optimization
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2014-08-27
             Blocks|                            |53947
           Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org      |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
            Summary|SSE optimization fails      |basic-block vectorization
                   |                            |fails
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Confirmed.  This is because SLP analysis sees a load from *alpha which it
doesn't
consider handling as extern def as it handles parameters.

Let me see if I can easily fix this.

[Bug fortran/62283] basic-block vectorization fails

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283

--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Like

Index: gcc/tree-vect-slp.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/tree-vect-slp.c (revision 214572)
+++ gcc/tree-vect-slp.c (working copy)
@@ -329,6 +329,13 @@ vect_get_and_check_slp_defs (loop_vec_in
             }
         }

+      /* If this is an internal def but the definition is not vectorizable
+         treat it as external def for basic-block SLP.  */
+      if (!loop
+         && dt == vect_internal_def
+         && !STMT_VINFO_VECTORIZABLE (vinfo_for_stmt (def_stmt)))
+       dt = vect_external_def;
+
       if (first)
        {
          oprnd_info->first_dt = dt;

if one can sort out placing of the initializer (currently we place it at
the start of the basic-block which is wrong).  Like with

Index: gcc/tree-vect-slp.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/tree-vect-slp.c (revision 214572)
+++ gcc/tree-vect-slp.c (working copy)
@@ -2447,6 +2454,8 @@ vect_get_constant_vectors (tree op, slp_

   number_of_places_left_in_vector = nunits;
   elts = XALLOCAVEC (tree, nunits);
+  gimple_stmt_iterator where;
+  bool where_p = false;
   for (j = 0; j < number_of_copies; j++)
     {
       for (i = group_size - 1; stmts.iterate (i, &stmt); i--)
@@ -2517,6 +2526,20 @@ vect_get_constant_vectors (tree op, slp_

           /* Create 'vect_ = {op0,op1,...,opn}'.  */
           number_of_places_left_in_vector--;
+         /* For "externals" defined in BB compute an insert location.  */
+         if (TREE_CODE (op) == SSA_NAME
+             && (STMT_VINFO_BB_VINFO (stmt_vinfo)->bb
+                 == gimple_bb (SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT (op))))
+           {
+             gimple stmt = NULL;
+             if (where_p)
+               stmt = get_earlier_stmt (SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT (op),
+                                        gsi_stmt (where));
+             if (!stmt || stmt == gsi_stmt (where))
+               stmt = SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT (op);
+             where = gsi_for_stmt (stmt);
+             where_p = true;
+           }
          if (!types_compatible_p (TREE_TYPE (vector_type), TREE_TYPE (op)))
            {
              if (CONSTANT_CLASS_P (op))
@@ -2558,8 +2581,12 @@ vect_get_constant_vectors (tree op, slp_
                    CONSTRUCTOR_APPEND_ELT (v, NULL_TREE, elts[k]);
                  vec_cst = build_constructor (vector_type, v);
                }
+             if (where_p)
+               gsi_next (&where);
               voprnds.quick_push (vect_init_vector (stmt, vec_cst,
-                                                   vector_type, NULL));
+                                                   vector_type,
+                                                   where_p ? &where : NULL));
+             where_p = false;
              if (ctor_seq != NULL)
                {
                  gimple init_stmt = SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT (voprnds.last ());

a bit too hackish for my taste.  Also handling unvectorizable stmts as external
should instead turned into sth more general like forcing 'external' handling
as soon as the SLP build fails for children (and letting cost handling reject
the awful cases).

[Bug fortran/62283] basic-block vectorization fails

[holst at matmech dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283

--- Comment #4 from Henrik Holst <holst at matmech dot com> ---
Thank you Richard for looking into this issue.

You probably know already exactly why this bug appeared. I just wanted to
stress the severity of this issue, and especially for Fortran which is often
used in "number crunching" applications AND subroutine arguments are passed by
reference by default.

The following F2008 code works as expected:

      subroutine test1(x,y)
      real x(4),y(4)
      gamma=3.141593
      block
        beta=gamma
        y(1)=y(1)+beta*x(1)
        y(2)=y(2)+beta*x(2)
        y(3)=y(3)+beta*x(3)
        y(4)=y(4)+beta*x(4)
      end block
      end

but when `beta=gamma` is replaced with `beta=alpha` it again fails and
generates scalar code. So I ask: Does this bug force *ALL* computations which
involves directly or indirectly parameter values to subroutines and functions,
to be done in scalar? If so, its pretty bad.

Related or not, the following codes also generates scalar code:

      subroutine test2(x,y)
      real x(4),y(4)
      beta=3.141593
      do i=1,4
        y(i)=y(i)+beta*x(i)
      end do
      end

and

      subroutine test3(x,y)
      real x(4),y(4)
      beta=3.141593
      y=y+beta*x
      end

as well. I can create another bug for this if you think they are unrelated.

[Bug fortran/62283] basic-block vectorization fails

[holst at matmech dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283

--- Comment #5 from Henrik Holst <holst at matmech dot com> ---
The `alpha` argument in test1 subroutine went missing. (Visual copy-paste
between two machines... :-))

[Bug fortran/62283] basic-block vectorization fails

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283

--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Henrik Holst from comment #4)
> Thank you Richard for looking into this issue.
> 
> You probably know already exactly why this bug appeared. I just wanted to
> stress the severity of this issue, and especially for Fortran which is often
> used in "number crunching" applications AND subroutine arguments are passed
> by reference by default.
> 
> The following F2008 code works as expected:
> 
>       subroutine test1(x,y)
>       real x(4),y(4)
>       gamma=3.141593
>       block
>         beta=gamma
>         y(1)=y(1)+beta*x(1)
>         y(2)=y(2)+beta*x(2)
>         y(3)=y(3)+beta*x(3)
>         y(4)=y(4)+beta*x(4)
>       end block
>       end
> 
> but when `beta=gamma` is replaced with `beta=alpha` it again fails and
> generates scalar code. So I ask: Does this bug force *ALL* computations
> which involves directly or indirectly parameter values to subroutines and
> functions, to be done in scalar? If so, its pretty bad.

For basic-block vectorization?  It depends whether the first use of
the indirect parameter is in the same basic-block that is supposed
to be vectorized or not ...

> Related or not, the following codes also generates scalar code:
> 
>       subroutine test2(x,y)
>       real x(4),y(4)
>       beta=3.141593
>       do i=1,4
>         y(i)=y(i)+beta*x(i)
>       end do
>       end

That's because we decide to peel for alignment and then decide the
result is not profitable to vectorize.  With -fno-vect-cost-model
the loop is vectorized (but in an awkward way).  You may want to
file a separate bug about this.

> and
> 
>       subroutine test3(x,y)
>       real x(4),y(4)
>       beta=3.141593
>       y=y+beta*x
>       end

Same issue (add it as another testcase to the new bug).

It is of course pointless to peel for alignment if the remaining loop
will always run less than the vectorization factor.  Versioning for
alignment may still be applied here.

> as well. I can create another bug for this if you think they are unrelated.

[Bug fortran/62283] basic-block vectorization fails

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283

--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> (In reply to Henrik Holst from comment #4)
> > Thank you Richard for looking into this issue.
> > 
> > You probably know already exactly why this bug appeared. I just wanted to
> > stress the severity of this issue, and especially for Fortran which is often
> > used in "number crunching" applications AND subroutine arguments are passed
> > by reference by default.
> > 
> > The following F2008 code works as expected:
> > 
> >       subroutine test1(x,y)
> >       real x(4),y(4)
> >       gamma=3.141593
> >       block
> >         beta=gamma
> >         y(1)=y(1)+beta*x(1)
> >         y(2)=y(2)+beta*x(2)
> >         y(3)=y(3)+beta*x(3)
> >         y(4)=y(4)+beta*x(4)
> >       end block
> >       end
> > 
> > but when `beta=gamma` is replaced with `beta=alpha` it again fails and
> > generates scalar code. So I ask: Does this bug force *ALL* computations
> > which involves directly or indirectly parameter values to subroutines and
> > functions, to be done in scalar? If so, its pretty bad.
> 
> For basic-block vectorization?  It depends whether the first use of
> the indirect parameter is in the same basic-block that is supposed
> to be vectorized or not ...
> 
> > Related or not, the following codes also generates scalar code:
> > 
> >       subroutine test2(x,y)
> >       real x(4),y(4)
> >       beta=3.141593
> >       do i=1,4
> >         y(i)=y(i)+beta*x(i)
> >       end do
> >       end
> 
> That's because we decide to peel for alignment and then decide the
> result is not profitable to vectorize.  With -fno-vect-cost-model
> the loop is vectorized (but in an awkward way).  You may want to
> file a separate bug about this.
> 
> > and
> > 
> >       subroutine test3(x,y)
> >       real x(4),y(4)
> >       beta=3.141593
> >       y=y+beta*x
> >       end
> 
> Same issue (add it as another testcase to the new bug).
> 
> It is of course pointless to peel for alignment if the remaining loop
> will always run less than the vectorization factor.  Versioning for
> alignment may still be applied here.

I have a simple patch for this.

> > as well. I can create another bug for this if you think they are unrelated.

[Bug fortran/62283] basic-block vectorization fails

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283

--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
testcases in comment#4 should now work (no need to file a separate bug).

[Bug fortran/62283] basic-block vectorization fails

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283

--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Aug 28 13:13:45 2014
New Revision: 214678

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214678&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-08-28  Richard Biener  <rguenther@suse.de>

    PR tree-optimization/62283
    * tree-vect-data-refs.c (vect_enhance_data_refs_alignment):
    Do not peel loops for alignment where the vector loop likely
    doesn't run at least VF times.

    * gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283.f: New testcase.
    * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/cunroll-5.c: Adjust.
    * gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/i386/costmodel-vect-31.c: Likewise.
    * gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/i386/costmodel-vect-33.c: Likewise.
    * gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/x86_64/costmodel-vect-31.c: Likewise.
    * gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/x86_64/costmodel-vect-33.c: Likewise.
    * gcc.dg/vect/vect-33.c: Likewise.

Added:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283.f
Modified:
    trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/cunroll-5.c
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/i386/costmodel-vect-31.c
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/i386/costmodel-vect-33.c
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/x86_64/costmodel-vect-31.c
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/x86_64/costmodel-vect-33.c
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-33.c
    trunk/gcc/tree-vect-data-refs.c

[Bug fortran/62283] basic-block vectorization fails

[ro at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283

Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |ro at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #10 from Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The last patch introduced a failure on SPARC:

FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-33.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of access
forced using versioning" 1
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-33.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects  scan-tree-dump-times vect
"Alignment of access forced using versioning" 1

The vect dump still says

note: Alignment of access forced using peeling.

  Rainer

[Bug fortran/62283] basic-block vectorization fails

[rguenther at suse dot de]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283

--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Mon, 1 Sep 2014, ro at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283
> 
> Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
> 
>            What    |Removed                     |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                  CC|                            |ro at gcc dot gnu.org
> 
> --- Comment #10 from Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> The last patch introduced a failure on SPARC:
> 
> FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-33.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of access
> forced using versioning" 1
> FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-33.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects  scan-tree-dump-times vect
> "Alignment of access forced using versioning" 1
> 
> The vect dump still says
> 
> note: Alignment of access forced using peeling.

Can you attach the vect dump?  I suppose vectors are rather short on 
SPARC?

[Bug fortran/62283] basic-block vectorization fails

[ro at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283

--- Comment #12 from Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 33426
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33426&action=edit
vect dump

Sure, I meant to but forgot...

[Bug fortran/62283] basic-block vectorization fails

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283

--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #12)
> Created attachment 33426 [details]
> vect dump
> 
> Sure, I meant to but forgot...

Ok:

/vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-33.c:19:3: note:
vectorization factor = 8

so we have a vector of 8 chars, v8qi but vect64 is not enabled for SPARC?
(target-supports.exp).  The { ! vect64 } / && vect64 cases were supposed
to catch the case where vectorization uses v8qi (instead of the more
common v16qi).

So ... can you test enabling vect64 for sparc?

[Bug fortran/62283] basic-block vectorization fails

[ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283

--- Comment #14 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
> --- Comment #13 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #12)
>> Created attachment 33426 [details]
>> vect dump
>> 
>> Sure, I meant to but forgot...
>
> Ok:
>
> /vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-33.c:19:3: note:
> vectorization factor = 8
>
> so we have a vector of 8 chars, v8qi but vect64 is not enabled for SPARC?
> (target-supports.exp).  The { ! vect64 } / && vect64 cases were supposed
> to catch the case where vectorization uses v8qi (instead of the more
> common v16qi).
>
> So ... can you test enabling vect64 for sparc?

While it works for the test at hand, the two other tests using vect64
(bb-slp-11.c and bb-slp-26.c) now FAIL:

FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-11.c scan-tree-dump-times slp2 "basic block
vectorized" 1
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-26.c scan-tree-dump-times slp1 "basic block
vectorized" 1

    Rainer

[Bug fortran/62283] basic-block vectorization fails

[rguenther at suse dot de]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283

--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Mon, 1 Sep 2014, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283
> 
> --- Comment #14 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
> > --- Comment #13 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> > (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #12)
> >> Created attachment 33426 [details]
> >> vect dump
> >> 
> >> Sure, I meant to but forgot...
> >
> > Ok:
> >
> > /vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-33.c:19:3: note:
> > vectorization factor = 8
> >
> > so we have a vector of 8 chars, v8qi but vect64 is not enabled for SPARC?
> > (target-supports.exp).  The { ! vect64 } / && vect64 cases were supposed
> > to catch the case where vectorization uses v8qi (instead of the more
> > common v16qi).
> >
> > So ... can you test enabling vect64 for sparc?
> 
> While it works for the test at hand, the two other tests using vect64
> (bb-slp-11.c and bb-slp-26.c) now FAIL:
> 
> FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-11.c scan-tree-dump-times slp2 "basic block
> vectorized" 1
> FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-26.c scan-tree-dump-times slp1 "basic block
> vectorized" 1

I wonder about the dump files for those...  also if they fail on the
other vect64 target (arm-little-endian with NEON).

Richard.

[Bug fortran/62283] basic-block vectorization fails

[ro at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283

--- Comment #17 from Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 33434
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33434&action=edit
bb-slp-26.c.120t.slp1 dump

[Bug fortran/62283] basic-block vectorization fails

[ro at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283

--- Comment #16 from Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 33433
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33433&action=edit
bb-slp-11.c.126t.slp2 dump

[Bug fortran/62283] basic-block vectorization fails

[ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283

--- Comment #18 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
>> > So ... can you test enabling vect64 for sparc?
>> 
>> While it works for the test at hand, the two other tests using vect64
>> (bb-slp-11.c and bb-slp-26.c) now FAIL:
>> 
>> FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-11.c scan-tree-dump-times slp2 "basic block
>> vectorized" 1
>> FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-26.c scan-tree-dump-times slp1 "basic block
>> vectorized" 1
>
> I wonder about the dump files for those...  also if they fail on the

Attached now.

    Rainer

[Bug fortran/62283] basic-block vectorization fails

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283

--- Comment #19 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #16)
> Created attachment 33433 [details]
> bb-slp-11.c.126t.slp2 dump

/vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-11.c:19:8: note:
not vectorized: relevant stmt not supported: _4 = (unsigned short) _3;

seems SPARC VIS doesn't support int -> ushort conversion?  The idea is
that we need v4hi vectors for the conversion result and use two
v2si vectors for the input.

  _3 = MEM[(unsigned int *)&in];
  _4 = (unsigned short) _3;
  _5 = _4 + 23;
  a0_6 = (short int) _5;
...
  _19 = (unsigned int) a0_6;
  _21 = _19 * x_20(D);

Thus the testcase misses dg-require-effective-target vect_unpack and
vect_pack_trunc which both SPARC doesn't support.

Thus a testcase bug.

[Bug fortran/62283] basic-block vectorization fails

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283

--- Comment #20 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #17)
> Created attachment 33434 [details]
> bb-slp-26.c.120t.slp1 dump

For this we see

/vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-26.c:19:14: note:
Build SLP failed: unsupported unaligned load _12 = *src_132;

which means that SPARC VIS has no unalign scheme implemented (well, the
only valid one for basic-block vect being unaligned HW loads).

Not sure if that was intended for the testcase.

A fix is to see how arm manages to pass this (it isn't a hw_misalign
target - ah, but it only requires aligned vector elements -
vect_element_align).

So again a testsuite bug, it should require vect_element_align
(which includes hw_misalign targets).

[Bug fortran/62283] basic-block vectorization fails

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283

--- Comment #21 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Apr 28 08:30:44 2015
New Revision: 222514

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222514&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-04-28  Richard Biener  <rguenther@suse.de>

        PR tree-optimization/62283
        * tree-vect-slp.c (vect_build_slp_tree): When the SLP build
        fails fatally and we are vectorizing a basic-block simply
        cause the child to be constructed piecewise.
        (vect_analyze_slp_cost_1): Adjust.
        (vect_detect_hybrid_slp_stmts): Likewise.
        (vect_bb_slp_scalar_cost): Likewise.
        (vect_get_constant_vectors): For piecewise constructed
        constants place them after the last def.
        (vect_get_slp_defs): Adjust.
        * tree-vect-stmts.c (vect_is_simple_use): Detect in-BB
        externals for basic-block vectorization.

        * gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283-2.f: New testcase.
        * gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-14.c: Adjust.

Added:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283-2.f
Modified:
    trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-14.c
    trunk/gcc/tree-vect-slp.c
    trunk/gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c

[Bug fortran/62283] basic-block vectorization fails

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED
   Target Milestone|---                         |6.0

--- Comment #22 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed for GCC 6.

[Bug fortran/62283] basic-block vectorization fails

[ro at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283

Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

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

--- Comment #23 from Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The bb-slp-14.c testcase now FAILs on Solaris/SPARC.  Attaching the dump.

  Rainer

[Bug fortran/62283] basic-block vectorization fails

[ro at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283

--- Comment #24 from Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 35454
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35454&action=edit
bb-slp-14.c.141t.slp2 dump

[Bug fortran/62283] basic-block vectorization fails

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283

--- Comment #25 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #23)
> The bb-slp-14.c testcase now FAILs on Solaris/SPARC.  Attaching the dump.
> 
>   Rainer

/vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-14.c:19:10: note:
not vectorized: relevant stmt not supported: _11 = a0_4 * x_10(D);

ok, so we miss to test for vect_int_mult.

[Bug fortran/62283] basic-block vectorization fails

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

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

--- Comment #26 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed.

[Bug fortran/62283] basic-block vectorization fails

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283

--- Comment #27 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May  6 06:47:38 2015
New Revision: 222843

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222843&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-05-06  Richard Biener  <rguenther@suse.de>

        PR tree-optimization/62283
        * gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-14.c: Adjust.

Modified:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-14.c

[Bug fortran/62283] basic-block vectorization fails

[ro at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283

--- Comment #28 from Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 35476
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35476&action=edit
bb-slp-32.c.141t.slp2 dump

A reghunt just confirmed that the patch also caused 

XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-32.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects  scan-tree-dump slp2
"vectorization is not profitable"

Dump attached.

[Bug fortran/62283] basic-block vectorization fails

[rguenther at suse dot de]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283

--- Comment #29 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Wed, 6 May 2015, ro at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283
> 
> --- Comment #28 from Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> Created attachment 35476
>   --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35476&action=edit
> bb-slp-32.c.141t.slp2 dump
> 
> A reghunt just confirmed that the patch also caused 
> 
> XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-32.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects  scan-tree-dump slp2
> "vectorization is not profitable"
> 
> Dump attached.

Well - for vect_no_align && { ! vect_hw_misalign } it now tries to
build the vector from scalar loads and that (rightfully) fails due
to the cost model:

  Vector inside of basic block cost: 4
  Vector prologue cost: 3
  Vector epilogue cost: 0
  Scalar cost of basic block: 4

so I bet we can now simply remove the XFAIL for all archs.  Will do that.

[Bug fortran/62283] basic-block vectorization fails

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283

--- Comment #30 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May  6 12:21:01 2015
New Revision: 222849

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222849&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-05-06  Richard Biener  <rguenther@suse.de>

        PR tree-optimization/62283
        * gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-32.c: Remove XFAIL.

Modified:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-32.c

[Bug fortran/62283] basic-block vectorization fails

[ro at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283

Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

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

--- Comment #31 from Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
gcc.dg/vect/vect-33.c still FAILs on 32 and 64-bit SPARC:

FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-33.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects  scan-tree-dump-not
optimized "Invalid sum"
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-33.c scan-tree-dump-not optimized "Invalid sum"

[Bug fortran/62283] basic-block vectorization fails

[ro at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283

--- Comment #32 from Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 57563
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57563&action=edit
32-bit sparc-sun-solaris2.11 vect-33.c.265t.optimized

[Bug fortran/62283] basic-block vectorization fails

[anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283

anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|REOPENED                    |WAITING

--- Comment #33 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Why should this be a fortran bug?

Can't we reassign it to target or middle-end?

[Bug tree-optimization/62283] basic-block vectorization fails

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Component|fortran                     |tree-optimization
             Status|WAITING                     |REOPENED