From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-472465-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 25912 invoked by alias); 8 Jan 2015 13:02:47 -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 25771 invoked by uid 48); 8 Jan 2015 13:02:43 -0000
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/64410] gcc 25% slower than clang 3.5 for adding complex numbers
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 13:02:00 -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: 4.9.2
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
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: cc
Message-ID: <bug-64410-4-t4JnsgRKuF@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-64410-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-64410-4@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: 2015-01/txt/msg00459.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64410

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

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

--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #1)
> There are a number of things that make it complicated.
> 1) gcc doesn't like to vectorize when the number of iterations is not known
> at compile time.

Not an issue, we know it here (it's symbolic)

> 2) gcc doesn't vectorize anything already involving complex or vector
> operations.

Indeed - here the issue is that we have C++ 'complex' aggregate
load / store operations:

  _67 = MEM[(const struct complex &)_75];
  __r$_M_value = _67;
...
  _51 = REALPART_EXPR <__r$_M_value>;
  REALPART_EXPR <__r$_M_value> = _104;
...
  IMAGPART_EXPR <__r$_M_value> = _107;
  _108 = __r$_M_value;
  MEM[(struct cx_double *)_72] = _108;

which SRA for some reason didn't decompose as they are not aggregate
(well, they are COMPLEX_TYPE).  They are not in SSA form either because
they are partly written to.  In this case it would have been profitable
to SRA __r$_M_value.  Eventually this should have been complex lowerings
job (but it doesn't try to decompose complex assignments).

> 3) the ABI for complex uses 2 separate double instead of a vector of 2
> double.

I think that's unrelated.

> I believe there are dups at least for 2).