public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Kewen.Lin" <linkw@linux.ibm.com>
To: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Cc: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>,
	Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com>
Subject: [PATCH] vect: Move suggested_unroll_factor applying [PR105940]
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2022 18:02:16 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <948236dc-f881-f24f-bee5-7a804b1793ec@linux.ibm.com> (raw)

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?

BR,
Kewen
-----
	PR tree-optimization/105940

gcc/ChangeLog:

	* tree-vect-loop.cc (vect_analyze_loop_2): Move the place of
	applying suggested_unroll_factor after start_over.
---
 gcc/tree-vect-loop.cc | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gcc/tree-vect-loop.cc b/gcc/tree-vect-loop.cc
index 896218f23ea..af955d26f8d 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-vect-loop.cc
+++ b/gcc/tree-vect-loop.cc
@@ -2393,15 +2393,15 @@ vect_analyze_loop_2 (loop_vec_info loop_vinfo, bool &fatal,
      set of rgroups.  */
   gcc_assert (LOOP_VINFO_MASKS (loop_vinfo).is_empty ());

+  /* This is the point where we can re-start analysis with SLP forced off.  */
+start_over:
+
   /* Apply the suggested unrolling factor, this was determined by the backend
      during finish_cost the first time we ran the analyzis for this
      vector mode.  */
   if (loop_vinfo->suggested_unroll_factor > 1)
     LOOP_VINFO_VECT_FACTOR (loop_vinfo) *= loop_vinfo->suggested_unroll_factor;

-  /* This is the point where we can re-start analysis with SLP forced off.  */
-start_over:
-
   /* Now the vectorization factor is final.  */
   poly_uint64 vectorization_factor = LOOP_VINFO_VECT_FACTOR (loop_vinfo);
   gcc_assert (known_ne (vectorization_factor, 0U));
--
2.27.0

             reply	other threads:[~2022-06-13 10:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-06-13 10:02 Kewen.Lin [this message]
2022-06-13 11:38 ` Richard Biener
2022-06-14  6:03   ` Kewen.Lin

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=948236dc-f881-f24f-bee5-7a804b1793ec@linux.ibm.com \
    --to=linkw@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
    --cc=richard.sandiford@arm.com \
    /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: link
Be 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).