public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/98138] BB vect fail to SLP one case Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2020 12:19:10 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-98138-4-BQcEkBEpOa@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-98138-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98138 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- So the expected vectorization builds vectors { tmp[0][0], tmp[1][0], tmp[2][0], tmp[3][0] } that's not SLP, SLP tries to build the { tmp[i][0], tmp[i][1], tmp[i][2], tmp[i][3] } vector and "succeeds" - the SLP tree turns out to be highly inefficient though. So for the stores your desire is to see an interleaving scheme with VF 4 (the number of iterations). But interleaving fails because it would require a VF of 16 and there are not enough iteration in the loop. The classical SLP scheme degenerates (also due to the plus/minus mixed ops) to uniform vectors as we venture beyond the a{0,2} {+,-} a{1,3} expression. Starting SLP discovery from the grouped loads would get things going up to the above same expression. So not sure what's the best approach to this case. The testcase can be simplified still showing the SLP discovery issue: extern void test(unsigned int t[4][4]); void foo(int *p1, int i1, int *p2, int i2) { unsigned int tmp[4][4]; unsigned int a0, a1, a2, a3; for (int i = 0; i < 4; i++, p1 += i1, p2 += i2) { a0 = (p1[0] - p2[0]); a1 = (p1[1] - p2[1]); a2 = (p1[2] - p2[2]); a3 = (p1[3] - p2[3]); int t0 = a0 + a1; int t1 = a0 - a1; int t2 = a2 + a3; int t3 = a2 - a3; tmp[i][0] = t0 + t2; tmp[i][2] = t0 - t2; tmp[i][1] = t1 + t3; tmp[i][3] = t1 - t3; } test(tmp); } So it's basically SLP discovery degenerating to an interleaving scheme on the load side but not actually "implementing" it.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-12-04 12:19 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2020-12-04 10:46 [Bug tree-optimization/98138] New: " linkw at gcc dot gnu.org 2020-12-04 10:52 ` [Bug tree-optimization/98138] " linkw at gcc dot gnu.org 2020-12-04 12:19 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org [this message] 2020-12-07 3:10 ` linkw at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-01-05 8:42 ` linkw at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-01-06 3:29 ` linkw at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-01-06 9:48 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-01-12 7:23 ` linkw at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-01-12 7:25 ` linkw at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-08-04 10:31 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-07-06 10:39 ` ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-02-01 8:19 ` manolis.tsamis at vrull dot eu 2023-10-04 22:37 ` jiangning.liu at amperecomputing dot com 2023-10-05 6:58 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-10-09 7:38 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=bug-98138-4-BQcEkBEpOa@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).