From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 359353857C52; Wed, 31 Jan 2024 09:19:09 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 359353857C52
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1706692749;
	bh=hPqLeuzJry4eI7XwKHX4WuBmE2EvxCu8zlL/tCXbV/Y=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=ltZkmXUYc97Nsx3Dhdwj7hSC6sS3RiNruqsOekKVtjcgDR1AIDfoMV5YW4Z6VbtlN
	 MiN+zSQZJMJWX3+lmN0qcn/UiorYr/SGqthwGLKKX49zBG2bXZ90pD7dF/FicKRuC6
	 ux6njwLrXS0xoptCA8mxCl5LDxSkG646x2Vrtd3s=
From: "juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai" <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 09:19:08 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
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-99395-4-d8bKNg8JSG@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-99395-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-99395-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D99395

--- 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:
>=20
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D99395
> >=20
> > --- 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:
> > >=20
> > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D99395
> > > >=20
> > > > --- Comment #14 from JuzheZhong <juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai> ---
> > > > Thanks Richard.
> > > >=20
> > > > It seems that we can't fix this issue for now. Is that right ?
> > > >=20
> > > > If I understand correctly, do you mean we should wait after SLP rep=
resentations
> > > > are finished and then revisit this PR?
> > >=20
> > > Yes.
> >=20
> > It seems to be a big refactor work.
>=20
> It's not too bad if people wouldn't continue to add features not=20
> implementing SLP ...
>=20
> > I wonder I can do anything to help with SLP representations ?
>=20
> 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/depende=
nce
analysis (e.g. this PR case, s116).

and avoid adding new features into loop vectorizer, e.g. min/max reduction =
with
index (s315).

To not to make your SLP refactoring work heavier.

Am I right ?=