public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/99395] s116 benchmark of TSVC is vectorized by clang and not by gcc Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 09:56:00 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-99395-4-J0XH9takIe@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-99395-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99395 --- Comment #19 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> --- On Wed, 31 Jan 2024, juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99395 > > --- Comment #18 from JuzheZhong <juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai> --- > (In reply to rguenther@suse.de from comment #17) > > On Wed, 31 Jan 2024, juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai wrote: > > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99395 > > > > > > --- Comment #16 from JuzheZhong <juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai> --- > > > (In reply to rguenther@suse.de from comment #15) > > > > On Wed, 31 Jan 2024, juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai wrote: > > > > > > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99395 > > > > > > > > > > --- Comment #14 from JuzheZhong <juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai> --- > > > > > Thanks Richard. > > > > > > > > > > It seems that we can't fix this issue for now. Is that right ? > > > > > > > > > > If I understand correctly, do you mean we should wait after SLP representations > > > > > are finished and then revisit this PR? > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > It seems to be a big refactor work. > > > > It's not too bad if people wouldn't continue to add features not > > implementing SLP ... > > > > > I wonder I can do anything to help with SLP representations ? > > > > I hope to get back to this before stage1 re-opens and will post > > another request for testing. It's really mostly going to be making > > sure all paths have coverage which means testing all the various > > architectures - I can only easily test x86. There's a branch > > I worked on last year, refs/users/rguenth/heads/vect-force-slp, > > which I use to hunt down cases not supporting SLP (it's a bit > > overeager to trigger, and it has known holes so it's not really > > a good starting point yet for folks to try other archs). > > Ok. It seems that you almost done with that but needs more testing in > various targets. > > So, if I want to work on optimizing vectorization (start with TSVC), > I should avoid touching the failed vectorized due to data reference/dependence > analysis (e.g. this PR case, s116). It depends on the actual case - the one in this bug at least looks like half of it might be dealt with with the refactoring. > and avoid adding new features into loop vectorizer, e.g. min/max reduction with > index (s315). It's fine to add features if they works with SLP as well ;) Note that in the future SLP will also do the "single lane" case but it doesn't do that on trunk. Some features are difficult with multi-lane SLP and probably not important in practice for that case, still handling single-lane SLP will be important as otherwise the feature is lost. > To not to make your SLP refactoring work heavier. > > Am I right ? Yes. I've got early break vectorization to chase now, I was "finished" with the parts I could exercise on x86_64 in autumn ...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-01-31 9:56 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-03-04 23:01 [Bug middle-end/99395] New: " hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-03-04 23:24 ` [Bug middle-end/99395] " hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-03-05 8:27 ` [Bug tree-optimization/99395] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-03-05 15:42 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-10-18 10:28 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-10-18 10:37 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-10-07 9:10 ` juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai 2023-10-09 6:30 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-01-30 11:37 ` juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai 2024-01-30 12:26 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-01-31 1:32 ` juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai 2024-01-31 3:50 ` juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai 2024-01-31 7:00 ` juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai 2024-01-31 7:59 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-01-31 8:09 ` juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai 2024-01-31 8:18 ` rguenther at suse dot de 2024-01-31 8:27 ` juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai 2024-01-31 9:08 ` rguenther at suse dot de 2024-01-31 9:19 ` juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai 2024-01-31 9:56 ` rguenther at suse dot de [this message] 2024-04-07 21:33 ` pinskia 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-99395-4-J0XH9takIe@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).