From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09692385AE4E for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2022 06:03:43 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 09692385AE4E Received: from pps.filterd (m0098419.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 25E4iOJC012011; Tue, 14 Jun 2022 06:03:40 GMT Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3gpcgqr1u3-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 14 Jun 2022 06:03:40 +0000 Received: from m0098419.ppops.net (m0098419.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 25E60Hm2021380; Tue, 14 Jun 2022 06:03:40 GMT Received: from ppma06fra.de.ibm.com (48.49.7a9f.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [159.122.73.72]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3gpcgqr1t1-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 14 Jun 2022 06:03:39 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma06fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma06fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 25E5pfvZ029153; Tue, 14 Jun 2022 06:03:38 GMT Received: from b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay09.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.194]) by ppma06fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3gmjahtywv-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 14 Jun 2022 06:03:38 +0000 Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.61]) by b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 25E63Zww22348270 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 14 Jun 2022 06:03:35 GMT Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87B9111C050; Tue, 14 Jun 2022 06:03:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3609311C04A; Tue, 14 Jun 2022 06:03:34 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.200.42.225] (unknown [9.200.42.225]) by d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 14 Jun 2022 06:03:33 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <58789880-1e02-15fb-9ff0-f354312de2a1@linux.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 14:03:32 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH] vect: Move suggested_unroll_factor applying [PR105940] Content-Language: en-US To: Richard Biener Cc: GCC Patches , Richard Sandiford References: <948236dc-f881-f24f-bee5-7a804b1793ec@linux.ibm.com> From: "Kewen.Lin" In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: pio-pGGvg93Vc2_FVi0F_CXHlAFRUtn5 X-Proofpoint-GUID: WlrcOaRUJUfWAYeuClgaS6aGSAmlJIeJ X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.874,Hydra:6.0.517,FMLib:17.11.64.514 definitions=2022-06-14_02,2022-06-13_01,2022-02-23_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 impostorscore=0 bulkscore=0 clxscore=1015 suspectscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 spamscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2204290000 definitions=main-2206140023 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_EF, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 06:03:53 -0000 on 2022/6/13 19:38, Richard Biener wrote: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 12:02 PM Kewen.Lin wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> As PR105940 shown, when rs6000 port tries to assign >> m_suggested_unroll_factor by 4 or so, there will be ICE >> on below statement: >> >> exact_div (LOOP_VINFO_VECT_FACTOR (loop_vinfo), >> loop_vinfo->suggested_unroll_factor); >> >> In function vect_analyze_loop_2, the current place of >> suggested_unroll_factor applying can't guarantee it's >> applied for all cases. As the case shows, vectorizer >> could retry with SLP forced off, the vf is reset by >> saved_vectorization_factor which isn't applied with >> suggested_unroll_factor before. It means it can end >> up with one vf which neglects suggested_unroll_factor. >> I think it's off design, we should move the applying >> of suggested_unroll_factor after start_over. >> >> Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-redhat-linux, >> aarch64-linux-gnu and powerpc64{,le}-linux-gnu. >> >> Is it ok for trunk? > > OK (I think the GCC 12 branch is also affected). > Thanks Richi! Committed as r13-1083. I'll backport this to GCC12 branch in a week if it goes well in trunk. BR, Kewen