From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 74914 invoked by alias); 21 Dec 2016 16:33:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 73902 invoked by uid 89); 21 Dec 2016 16:33:08 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=christophelyonlinaroorg, christophe.lyon@linaro.org, ysrumyan@gmail.com, ysrumyangmailcom X-HELO: mail-vk0-f41.google.com Received: from mail-vk0-f41.google.com (HELO mail-vk0-f41.google.com) (209.85.213.41) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 16:32:57 +0000 Received: by mail-vk0-f41.google.com with SMTP id x186so152227055vkd.1 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 08:32:57 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=cvitMvhckUyZXQdR8MZNB2vsHhBGn0/yb8eklM32VFo=; b=AxydokRhtY1P7sofH6NZll/UTxuDGnch2npsLZGL6gAZh+gOQ+ihCiPlkzdBWgGuoh 8usz9X9Udp+ai6cHbEECj9fVVLFePzdPyxoaYVoYnqVcfU7bgapsMqOIghUpiA6+RC8Q cba4Ob3sFo6ng3y0XC+zwOpy+yfMJsG9/ov19OeEX1a5BnsaCIWh+q9Jm1UIEtHzEiq3 xbKaoN2U5uzPk9/k8ts02DJCT1C7bUiUtMWSyKYsGWObsNGpoCtYi7O031Vm1q011Hhb pk9uE5TW2gSg4MuL6QvKwaWK1DG7C60BVAAQ8EAjifRCj6TI5CbZTNvwdcncMML0kqIn xv9A== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLR9OZYXj6unvmAaS046ZzM5IUBHrFpB2Qu4RZpbRrabyYZWWWs7zFNcInjUcFogCBm3ql5xP2Q7iiagQ== X-Received: by 10.31.16.207 with SMTP id 76mr1837657vkq.66.1482337974735; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 08:32:54 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.159.38.230 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 08:32:53 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Yuri Rumyantsev Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 17:23:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH, vec-tails] Support loop epilogue vectorization To: Richard Biener , gcc-patches , Pavel Chupin Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=001a11433cae6bfc5505442db4eb X-SW-Source: 2016-12/txt/msg01791.txt.bz2 --001a11433cae6bfc5505442db4eb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-length: 60196 Sorry, I put wrong test - fix it here. 2016-12-21 13:12 GMT+03:00 Yuri Rumyantsev : > Hi Richard, > > I occasionally found out a bug in my patch related to epilogue > vectorization without masking : need to put label before > initialization. > > Could you please review and integrate it to trunk. Test-case is also attached. > > > Thanks ahead. > Yuri. > > ChangeLog: > 2016-12-21 Yuri Rumyantsev > > * tree-vectorizer.c (vectorize_loops): Put label before initialization > of loop_vectorized_call. > > gcc/testsuite/ > > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-tail-nomask-2.c: New test. > > 2016-12-13 16:59 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener : >> On Mon, 12 Dec 2016, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote: >> >>> Richard, >>> >>> Could you please review cost model patch before to include it to >>> epilogue masking patch and add masking cost estimation as you >>> requested. >> >> That's just the middle-end / target changes. I was not 100% happy >> with them but well, the vectorizer cost modeling needs work >> (aka another rewrite). >> >> From below... >> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Patch and ChangeLog are attached. >>> >>> 2016-12-12 15:47 GMT+03:00 Yuri Rumyantsev : >>> > Hi Richard, >>> > >>> > You asked me about performance of spec2006 on AVX2 machine with new feature. >>> > >>> > I tried the following on Haswell using original patch designed by Ilya. >>> > 1. Masking low trip count loops only 6 benchmarks are affected and >>> > performance is almost the same >>> > 464.h264ref 63.9000 64.0000 +0.15% >>> > 416.gamess 42.9000 42.9000 +0% >>> > 435.gromacs 32.8000 32.7000 -0.30% >>> > 447.dealII 68.5000 68.3000 -0.29% >>> > 453.povray 61.9000 62.1000 +0.32% >>> > 454.calculix 39.8000 39.8000 +0% >>> > 465.tonto 29.9000 29.9000 +0% >>> > >>> > 2. epilogue vectorization without masking (use less vf) (3 benchmarks >>> > are not affected) >>> > 400.perlbench 47.2000 46.5000 -1.48% >>> > 401.bzip2 29.9000 29.9000 +0% >>> > 403.gcc 41.8000 41.6000 -0.47% >>> > 456.hmmer 32.0000 32.0000 +0% >>> > 462.libquantum 81.5000 82.0000 +0.61% >>> > 464.h264ref 65.0000 65.5000 +0.76% >>> > 471.omnetpp 27.8000 28.2000 +1.43% >>> > 473.astar 28.7000 28.6000 -0.34% >>> > 483.xalancbmk 48.7000 48.6000 -0.20% >>> > 410.bwaves 95.3000 95.3000 +0% >>> > 416.gamess 42.9000 42.8000 -0.23% >>> > 433.milc 38.8000 38.8000 +0% >>> > 434.zeusmp 51.7000 51.4000 -0.58% >>> > 435.gromacs 32.8000 32.8000 +0% >>> > 436.cactusADM 85.0000 83.0000 -2.35% >>> > 437.leslie3d 55.5000 55.5000 +0% >>> > 444.namd 31.3000 31.3000 +0% >>> > 447.dealII 68.7000 68.9000 +0.29% >>> > 450.soplex 47.3000 47.4000 +0.21% >>> > 453.povray 62.1000 61.4000 -1.12% >>> > 454.calculix 39.7000 39.3000 -1.00% >>> > 459.GemsFDTD 44.9000 45.0000 +0.22% >>> > 465.tonto 29.8000 29.8000 +0% >>> > 481.wrf 51.0000 51.2000 +0.39% >>> > 482.sphinx3 69.8000 71.2000 +2.00% >> >> I see 471.omnetpp and 482.sphinx3 are in a similar ballpark and it >> would be nice to catch the relevant case(s) with a cost model for >> epilogue vectorization without masking first (to get rid of >> --param vect-epilogues-nomask). >> >> As said elsewhere any non-conservative cost modeling (if the >> number of scalar iterations is not statically constant) might >> require versioning of the loop into a non-vectorized, >> short-trip vectorized and regular vectorized case (the Intel >> compiler does way more aggressive versioning IIRC). >> >> Richard. >> >>> > 3. epilogue vectorization using masking (4 benchmarks are not affected): >>> > 400.perlbench 47.5000 46.8000 -1.47% >>> > 401.bzip2 30.0000 29.9000 -0.33% >>> > 403.gcc 42.3000 42.3000 +0% >>> > 445.gobmk 32.1000 32.8000 +2.18% >>> > 456.hmmer 32.0000 32.0000 +0% >>> > 458.sjeng 36.1000 35.5000 -1.66% >>> > 462.libquantum 81.1000 81.1000 +0% >>> > 464.h264ref 65.4000 65.0000 -0.61% >>> > 483.xalancbmk 49.4000 49.3000 -0.20% >>> > 410.bwaves 95.9000 95.5000 -0.41% >>> > 416.gamess 42.8000 42.6000 -0.46% >>> > 433.milc 38.8000 39.1000 +0.77% >>> > 434.zeusmp 52.1000 51.3000 -1.53% >>> > 435.gromacs 32.9000 32.9000 +0% >>> > 436.cactusADM 78.8000 85.3000 +8.24% >>> > 437.leslie3d 55.4000 55.4000 +0% >>> > 444.namd 31.3000 31.3000 +0% >>> > 447.dealII 69.0000 69.2000 +0.28% >>> > 450.soplex 47.7000 47.6000 -0.20% >>> > 453.povray 62.2000 61.7000 -0.80% >>> > 454.calculix 39.7000 38.2000 -3.77% >>> > 459.GemsFDTD 44.9000 45.0000 +0.22% >>> > 465.tonto 29.8000 29.9000 +0.33% >>> > 481.wrf 51.2000 51.6000 +0.78% >>> > 482.sphinx3 70.3000 65.4000 -6.97% >>> > >>> > There is a good speed-up for 436 but there is essential slow0down on 482, 454. >>> > >>> > So In general we don't have any advantages for AVX2. >>> > >>> > Best regards. >>> > Yuri. >>> > >>> > P.S. >>> > I am not able to provide you with avx512 numbers because i don't have >>> > an access to it. >>> > Updated patch will be sent later. >>> > >>> > Best regards. >>> > Yuri. >>> > >>> > >>> > 2016-12-05 15:44 GMT+03:00 Yuri Rumyantsev : >>> >> Richard, >>> >> >>> >> Sorry, U sent you the bad assembly produced for loop with low trip >>> >> count, here is the correct one: >>> >> >>> >> vmovdqa .LC0(%rip), %ymm0 >>> >> vpmaskmovd b(%rip), %ymm0, %ymm1 >>> >> vpmaskmovd c(%rip), %ymm0, %ymm2 >>> >> vpaddd %ymm2, %ymm1, %ymm1 >>> >> vpmaskmovd %ymm1, %ymm0, a(%rip) >>> >> >>> >> where .LC0 vector with all elements equal to -1 except for the last. >>> >> >>> >> Note also that additional option is required --param >>> >> vect-short-loops=1 to do such conversion. >>> >> >>> >> Best regards. >>> >> Yuri. >>> >> >>> >> 2016-12-02 18:59 GMT+03:00 Yuri Rumyantsev : >>> >>> Richard, >>> >>> >>> >>> Important clarification: the test I sent you with low trip count is >>> >>> vectorized through masking only under >>> >>> --param vect-epilogues-combine=1 -fvect-epilogue-cost-model=unlimited >>> >>> for avx2. The laast option isrequired for avx2 since masked store has >>> >>> big cost in comparison with masked load. >>> >>> >>> >>> Below is assemby produced for it: >>> >>> vpcmpeqd %xmm0, %xmm0, %xmm0 >>> >>> vpmaskmovd b(%rip), %xmm0, %xmm1 >>> >>> vpmaskmovd c(%rip), %xmm0, %xmm2 >>> >>> vpaddd %xmm2, %xmm1, %xmm1 >>> >>> vpmaskmovd %xmm1, %xmm0, a(%rip) >>> >>> ret >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Yuri. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 2016-12-02 18:49 GMT+03:00 Yuri Rumyantsev : >>> >>>> Richard, >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I have also question about low trip count loops. >>> >>>> Did you mean that >>> >>>> int a[128], b[128], c[128]; >>> >>>> >>> >>>> void foo () >>> >>>> { >>> >>>> int i; >>> >>>> for (i = 0; i<7; i++) >>> >>>> a[i] = b[i] + c[i]; >>> >>>> } >>> >>>> >>> >>>> must be vectorizzed with masking without epilogue creation (e.g. for avx2)? >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Currently it vectorized with vector size 128. I also noticed that >>> >>>> original Ilya patch does nothing for such masking. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Thanks. >>> >>>> Yuri. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> 2016-12-02 17:08 GMT+03:00 Yuri Rumyantsev : >>> >>>>> Richard, >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> You wrote: >>> >>>>> I don't see _any_ cost model for vectorizing the epilogue with >>> >>>>> masking? Am I missing something? A "trivial" cost model >>> >>>>> should at least consider the additional IV(s), the mask >>> >>>>> compute and the widening and narrowing ops required. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> I skipped all changes related to cost model assuming that one of the >>> >>>>> next patch will contain all cost model changes. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Should I include it to this patch? >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Thanks. >>> >>>>> Yuri. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> 2016-12-01 17:45 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener : >>> >>>>>> On Thu, 1 Dec 2016, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote: >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> Thanks Richard for your comments. >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> You asked me about possible performance improvements for AVX2 machines >>> >>>>>>> - we did not see any visible speed-up for spec2k with any method of >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Spec 2000? Can you check with SPEC 2006 or CPUv6? >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Did you see performance degradation? What about compile-time and >>> >>>>>> binary size effects? >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> masking, including epilogue masking and combining, only on AVX512 >>> >>>>>>> machine aka knl. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> I see. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Note that as said in the initial review patch the cost model I >>> >>>>>> saw therein looked flawed. In the end I'd expect a sensible >>> >>>>>> approach would be to do >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> if (n < scalar-most-profitable-niter) >>> >>>>>> { >>> >>>>>> no vectorization >>> >>>>>> } >>> >>>>>> else if (n < masking-more-profitable-than-not-masking-plus-epilogue) >>> >>>>>> { >>> >>>>>> do masked vectorization >>> >>>>>> } >>> >>>>>> else >>> >>>>>> { >>> >>>>>> do unmasked vectorization (with epilogue, eventually vectorized) >>> >>>>>> } >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> where for short trip loops the else path would never be taken >>> >>>>>> (statically). >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> And yes, that means masking will only be useful for short-trip loops >>> >>>>>> which in the end means an overall performance benfit is unlikely >>> >>>>>> unless we have a lot of short-trip loops that are slow because of >>> >>>>>> the overhead of main unmasked loop plus epilogue. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Richard. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> I will answer on your question later. >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> Best regards. >>> >>>>>>> Yuri >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> 2016-12-01 14:33 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener : >>> >>>>>>> > On Mon, 28 Nov 2016, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote: >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> >> Richard! >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> I attached vect dump for hte part of attached test-case which >>> >>>>>>> >> illustrated how vectorization of epilogues works through masking: >>> >>>>>>> >> #define SIZE 1023 >>> >>>>>>> >> #define ALIGN 64 >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> extern int posix_memalign(void **memptr, __SIZE_TYPE__ alignment, >>> >>>>>>> >> __SIZE_TYPE__ size) __attribute__((weak)); >>> >>>>>>> >> extern void free (void *); >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> void __attribute__((noinline)) >>> >>>>>>> >> test_citer (int * __restrict__ a, >>> >>>>>>> >> int * __restrict__ b, >>> >>>>>>> >> int * __restrict__ c) >>> >>>>>>> >> { >>> >>>>>>> >> int i; >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> a = (int *)__builtin_assume_aligned (a, ALIGN); >>> >>>>>>> >> b = (int *)__builtin_assume_aligned (b, ALIGN); >>> >>>>>>> >> c = (int *)__builtin_assume_aligned (c, ALIGN); >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> for (i = 0; i < SIZE; i++) >>> >>>>>>> >> c[i] = a[i] + b[i]; >>> >>>>>>> >> } >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> It was compiled with -mavx2 --param vect-epilogues-mask=1 options. >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> I did not include in this patch vectorization of low trip-count loops >>> >>>>>>> >> since in the original patch additional parameter was introduced: >>> >>>>>>> >> +DEFPARAM (PARAM_VECT_SHORT_LOOPS, >>> >>>>>>> >> + "vect-short-loops", >>> >>>>>>> >> + "Enable vectorization of low trip count loops using masking.", >>> >>>>>>> >> + 0, 0, 1) >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> I assume that this ability can be included very quickly but it >>> >>>>>>> >> requires cost model enhancements also. >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > Comments on the patch itself (as I'm having a closer look again, >>> >>>>>>> > I know how it vectorizes the above but I wondered why epilogue >>> >>>>>>> > and short-trip loops are not basically the same code path). >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > Btw, I don't like that the features are behind a --param paywall. >>> >>>>>>> > That just means a) nobody will use it, b) it will bit-rot quickly, >>> >>>>>>> > c) bugs are well-hidden. >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > + if (loop_vinfo && LOOP_VINFO_CAN_BE_MASKED (loop_vinfo) >>> >>>>>>> > + && integer_zerop (nested_in_vect_loop >>> >>>>>>> > + ? STMT_VINFO_DR_STEP (stmt_info) >>> >>>>>>> > + : DR_STEP (dr))) >>> >>>>>>> > + { >>> >>>>>>> > + if (dump_enabled_p ()) >>> >>>>>>> > + dump_printf_loc (MSG_NOTE, vect_location, >>> >>>>>>> > + "allow invariant load for masked loop.\n"); >>> >>>>>>> > + } >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > this can test memory_access_type == VMAT_INVARIANT. Please put >>> >>>>>>> > all the checks in a common >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > if (loop_vinfo && LOOP_VINFO_CAN_BE_MASKED (loop_vinfo)) >>> >>>>>>> > { >>> >>>>>>> > if (memory_access_type == VMAT_INVARIANT) >>> >>>>>>> > { >>> >>>>>>> > } >>> >>>>>>> > else if (...) >>> >>>>>>> > { >>> >>>>>>> > LOOP_VINFO_CAN_BE_MASKED (loop_vinfo) = false; >>> >>>>>>> > } >>> >>>>>>> > else if (..) >>> >>>>>>> > ... >>> >>>>>>> > } >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > @@ -6667,6 +6756,15 @@ vectorizable_load (gimple *stmt, >>> >>>>>>> > gimple_stmt_iterator *gsi, gimple **vec_stmt, >>> >>>>>>> > gcc_assert (!nested_in_vect_loop); >>> >>>>>>> > gcc_assert (!STMT_VINFO_GATHER_SCATTER_P (stmt_info)); >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > + if (loop_vinfo && LOOP_VINFO_CAN_BE_MASKED (loop_vinfo)) >>> >>>>>>> > + { >>> >>>>>>> > + if (dump_enabled_p ()) >>> >>>>>>> > + dump_printf_loc (MSG_MISSED_OPTIMIZATION, vect_location, >>> >>>>>>> > + "cannot be masked: grouped access is not" >>> >>>>>>> > + " supported."); >>> >>>>>>> > + LOOP_VINFO_CAN_BE_MASKED (loop_vinfo) = false; >>> >>>>>>> > + } >>> >>>>>>> > + >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > isn't this already handled by the above? Or rather the general >>> >>>>>>> > disallowance of SLP? >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > @@ -5730,6 +5792,24 @@ vectorizable_store (gimple *stmt, >>> >>>>>>> > gimple_stmt_iterator *gsi, gimple **vec_stmt, >>> >>>>>>> > &memory_access_type, &gs_info)) >>> >>>>>>> > return false; >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > + if (loop_vinfo && LOOP_VINFO_CAN_BE_MASKED (loop_vinfo) >>> >>>>>>> > + && memory_access_type != VMAT_CONTIGUOUS) >>> >>>>>>> > + { >>> >>>>>>> > + LOOP_VINFO_CAN_BE_MASKED (loop_vinfo) = false; >>> >>>>>>> > + if (dump_enabled_p ()) >>> >>>>>>> > + dump_printf_loc (MSG_MISSED_OPTIMIZATION, vect_location, >>> >>>>>>> > + "cannot be masked: unsupported memory access >>> >>>>>>> > type.\n"); >>> >>>>>>> > + } >>> >>>>>>> > + >>> >>>>>>> > + if (loop_vinfo && LOOP_VINFO_CAN_BE_MASKED (loop_vinfo) >>> >>>>>>> > + && !can_mask_load_store (stmt)) >>> >>>>>>> > + { >>> >>>>>>> > + LOOP_VINFO_CAN_BE_MASKED (loop_vinfo) = false; >>> >>>>>>> > + if (dump_enabled_p ()) >>> >>>>>>> > + dump_printf_loc (MSG_MISSED_OPTIMIZATION, vect_location, >>> >>>>>>> > + "cannot be masked: unsupported masked store.\n"); >>> >>>>>>> > + } >>> >>>>>>> > + >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > likewise please combine the ifs. >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > @@ -2354,7 +2401,10 @@ vectorizable_mask_load_store (gimple *stmt, >>> >>>>>>> > gimple_stmt_iterator *gsi, >>> >>>>>>> > ptr, vec_mask, vec_rhs); >>> >>>>>>> > vect_finish_stmt_generation (stmt, new_stmt, gsi); >>> >>>>>>> > if (i == 0) >>> >>>>>>> > - STMT_VINFO_VEC_STMT (stmt_info) = *vec_stmt = new_stmt; >>> >>>>>>> > + { >>> >>>>>>> > + STMT_VINFO_VEC_STMT (stmt_info) = *vec_stmt = new_stmt; >>> >>>>>>> > + STMT_VINFO_FIRST_COPY_P (vinfo_for_stmt (new_stmt)) = true; >>> >>>>>>> > + } >>> >>>>>>> > else >>> >>>>>>> > STMT_VINFO_RELATED_STMT (prev_stmt_info) = new_stmt; >>> >>>>>>> > prev_stmt_info = vinfo_for_stmt (new_stmt); >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > here you only set the flag, elsewhere you copy DR and VECTYPE as well. >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > @@ -2113,6 +2146,20 @@ vectorizable_mask_load_store (gimple *stmt, >>> >>>>>>> > gimple_stmt_iterator *gsi, >>> >>>>>>> > && !useless_type_conversion_p (vectype, rhs_vectype))) >>> >>>>>>> > return false; >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > + if (LOOP_VINFO_CAN_BE_MASKED (loop_vinfo)) >>> >>>>>>> > + { >>> >>>>>>> > + /* Check that mask conjuction is supported. */ >>> >>>>>>> > + optab tab; >>> >>>>>>> > + tab = optab_for_tree_code (BIT_AND_EXPR, vectype, optab_default); >>> >>>>>>> > + if (!tab || optab_handler (tab, TYPE_MODE (vectype)) == >>> >>>>>>> > CODE_FOR_nothing) >>> >>>>>>> > + { >>> >>>>>>> > + if (dump_enabled_p ()) >>> >>>>>>> > + dump_printf_loc (MSG_MISSED_OPTIMIZATION, vect_location, >>> >>>>>>> > + "cannot be masked: unsupported mask >>> >>>>>>> > operation\n"); >>> >>>>>>> > + LOOP_VINFO_CAN_BE_MASKED (loop_vinfo) = false; >>> >>>>>>> > + } >>> >>>>>>> > + } >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > does this really test whether we can bit-and the mask? You are >>> >>>>>>> > using the vector type of the store (which might be V2DF for example), >>> >>>>>>> > also for AVX512 it might be a vector-bool type with integer mode? >>> >>>>>>> > Of course we maybe can simply assume mask conjunction is available >>> >>>>>>> > (I know no ISA where that would be not true). >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > +/* Return true if STMT can be converted to masked form. */ >>> >>>>>>> > + >>> >>>>>>> > +static bool >>> >>>>>>> > +can_mask_load_store (gimple *stmt) >>> >>>>>>> > +{ >>> >>>>>>> > + stmt_vec_info stmt_info = vinfo_for_stmt (stmt); >>> >>>>>>> > + tree vectype, mask_vectype; >>> >>>>>>> > + tree lhs, ref; >>> >>>>>>> > + >>> >>>>>>> > + if (!stmt_info) >>> >>>>>>> > + return false; >>> >>>>>>> > + lhs = gimple_assign_lhs (stmt); >>> >>>>>>> > + ref = (TREE_CODE (lhs) == SSA_NAME) ? gimple_assign_rhs1 (stmt) : lhs; >>> >>>>>>> > + if (may_be_nonaddressable_p (ref)) >>> >>>>>>> > + return false; >>> >>>>>>> > + vectype = STMT_VINFO_VECTYPE (stmt_info); >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > You probably modeled this after ifcvt_can_use_mask_load_store but I >>> >>>>>>> > don't think checking may_be_nonaddressable_p is necessary (we couldn't >>> >>>>>>> > even vectorize such refs). stmt_info should never be NULL either. >>> >>>>>>> > With the check removed tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.h should no longer be >>> >>>>>>> > necessary. >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > +static void >>> >>>>>>> > +vect_mask_load_store_stmt (gimple *stmt, tree vectype, tree mask, >>> >>>>>>> > + data_reference *dr, gimple_stmt_iterator *si) >>> >>>>>>> > +{ >>> >>>>>>> > ... >>> >>>>>>> > + addr = force_gimple_operand_gsi (&gsi, build_fold_addr_expr (mem), >>> >>>>>>> > + true, NULL_TREE, true, >>> >>>>>>> > + GSI_SAME_STMT); >>> >>>>>>> > + >>> >>>>>>> > + align = TYPE_ALIGN_UNIT (vectype); >>> >>>>>>> > + if (aligned_access_p (dr)) >>> >>>>>>> > + misalign = 0; >>> >>>>>>> > + else if (DR_MISALIGNMENT (dr) == -1) >>> >>>>>>> > + { >>> >>>>>>> > + align = TYPE_ALIGN_UNIT (elem_type); >>> >>>>>>> > + misalign = 0; >>> >>>>>>> > + } >>> >>>>>>> > + else >>> >>>>>>> > + misalign = DR_MISALIGNMENT (dr); >>> >>>>>>> > + set_ptr_info_alignment (get_ptr_info (addr), align, misalign); >>> >>>>>>> > + ptr = build_int_cst (reference_alias_ptr_type (mem), >>> >>>>>>> > + misalign ? misalign & -misalign : align); >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > you should simply use >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > align = get_object_alignment (mem) / BITS_PER_UNIT; >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > here rather than trying to be clever. Eventually you don't need >>> >>>>>>> > the DR then (see question above). >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > + } >>> >>>>>>> > + gsi_replace (si ? si : &gsi, new_stmt, false); >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > when you replace the load/store please previously copy VUSE and VDEF >>> >>>>>>> > from the original one (we were nearly clean enough to no longer >>> >>>>>>> > require a virtual operand rewrite after vectorization...) Thus >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > gimple_set_vuse (new_stmt, gimple_vuse (stmt)); >>> >>>>>>> > gimple_set_vdef (new_stmt, gimple_vdef (stmt)); >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > +static void >>> >>>>>>> > +vect_mask_loop (loop_vec_info loop_vinfo) >>> >>>>>>> > +{ >>> >>>>>>> > ... >>> >>>>>>> > + /* Scan all loop statements to convert vector load/store including >>> >>>>>>> > masked >>> >>>>>>> > + form. */ >>> >>>>>>> > + for (unsigned i = 0; i < loop->num_nodes; i++) >>> >>>>>>> > + { >>> >>>>>>> > + basic_block bb = bbs[i]; >>> >>>>>>> > + for (gimple_stmt_iterator si = gsi_start_bb (bb); >>> >>>>>>> > + !gsi_end_p (si); gsi_next (&si)) >>> >>>>>>> > + { >>> >>>>>>> > + gimple *stmt = gsi_stmt (si); >>> >>>>>>> > + stmt_vec_info stmt_info = NULL; >>> >>>>>>> > + tree vectype = NULL; >>> >>>>>>> > + data_reference *dr; >>> >>>>>>> > + >>> >>>>>>> > + /* Mask load case. */ >>> >>>>>>> > + if (is_gimple_call (stmt) >>> >>>>>>> > + && gimple_call_internal_p (stmt) >>> >>>>>>> > + && gimple_call_internal_fn (stmt) == IFN_MASK_LOAD >>> >>>>>>> > + && !VECTOR_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (gimple_call_arg (stmt, 2)))) >>> >>>>>>> > + { >>> >>>>>>> > ... >>> >>>>>>> > + /* Skip invariant loads. */ >>> >>>>>>> > + if (integer_zerop (nested_in_vect_loop_p (loop, stmt) >>> >>>>>>> > + ? STMT_VINFO_DR_STEP (stmt_info) >>> >>>>>>> > + : DR_STEP (STMT_VINFO_DATA_REF >>> >>>>>>> > (stmt_info)))) >>> >>>>>>> > + continue; >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > seeing this it would be nice if stmt_info had a flag for whether >>> >>>>>>> > the stmt needs masking (and a flag on wheter this is a scalar or a >>> >>>>>>> > vectorized stmt). >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > + /* Skip hoisted out statements. */ >>> >>>>>>> > + if (!flow_bb_inside_loop_p (loop, gimple_bb (stmt))) >>> >>>>>>> > + continue; >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > err, you walk stmts in the loop! Isn't this covered by the above >>> >>>>>>> > skipping of 'invariant loads'? >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > +static gimple * >>> >>>>>>> > +vect_mask_reduction_stmt (gimple *stmt, tree mask, gimple *prev) >>> >>>>>>> > +{ >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > depending on the reduction operand there are variants that >>> >>>>>>> > could get away w/o the VEC_COND_EXPR, like >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > S1': tem_4 = d_3 & MASK; >>> >>>>>>> > S2': r_1 = r_2 + tem_4; >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > which works for plus at least. More generally doing >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > S1': tem_4 = VEC_COND_EXPR >>> >>>>>>> > S2': r_1 = r_2 OP tem_4; >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > and leaving optimization to & to later opts (& won't work for >>> >>>>>>> > AVX512 mask registers I guess). >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > Good enough for later enhacement of course. >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > +static void >>> >>>>>>> > +vect_gen_ivs_for_masking (loop_vec_info loop_vinfo, vec *ivs) >>> >>>>>>> > +{ >>> >>>>>>> > ... >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > isn't it enough to always create a single IV and derive the >>> >>>>>>> > additional copies by IV + i * { elems, elems, elems ... }? >>> >>>>>>> > IVs are expensive -- I'm sure we can optimize the rest of the >>> >>>>>>> > scheme further as well but this one looks obvious to me. >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > @@ -3225,12 +3508,32 @@ vect_estimate_min_profitable_iters (loop_vec_info >>> >>>>>>> > loop_vinfo, >>> >>>>>>> > int npeel = LOOP_VINFO_PEELING_FOR_ALIGNMENT (loop_vinfo); >>> >>>>>>> > void *target_cost_data = LOOP_VINFO_TARGET_COST_DATA (loop_vinfo); >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > + if (LOOP_VINFO_EPILOGUE_P (loop_vinfo)) >>> >>>>>>> > + { >>> >>>>>>> > + /* Currently we don't produce scalar epilogue version in case >>> >>>>>>> > + its masked version is provided. It means we don't need to >>> >>>>>>> > + compute profitability one more time here. Just make a >>> >>>>>>> > + masked loop version. */ >>> >>>>>>> > + if (LOOP_VINFO_CAN_BE_MASKED (loop_vinfo) >>> >>>>>>> > + && PARAM_VALUE (PARAM_VECT_EPILOGUES_MASK)) >>> >>>>>>> > + { >>> >>>>>>> > + dump_printf_loc (MSG_NOTE, vect_location, >>> >>>>>>> > + "cost model: mask loop epilogue.\n"); >>> >>>>>>> > + LOOP_VINFO_MASK_LOOP (loop_vinfo) = true; >>> >>>>>>> > + *ret_min_profitable_niters = 0; >>> >>>>>>> > + *ret_min_profitable_estimate = 0; >>> >>>>>>> > + return; >>> >>>>>>> > + } >>> >>>>>>> > + } >>> >>>>>>> > /* Cost model disabled. */ >>> >>>>>>> > - if (unlimited_cost_model (LOOP_VINFO_LOOP (loop_vinfo))) >>> >>>>>>> > + else if (unlimited_cost_model (LOOP_VINFO_LOOP (loop_vinfo))) >>> >>>>>>> > { >>> >>>>>>> > dump_printf_loc (MSG_NOTE, vect_location, "cost model >>> >>>>>>> > disabled.\n"); >>> >>>>>>> > *ret_min_profitable_niters = 0; >>> >>>>>>> > *ret_min_profitable_estimate = 0; >>> >>>>>>> > + if (PARAM_VALUE (PARAM_VECT_EPILOGUES_MASK) >>> >>>>>>> > + && LOOP_VINFO_CAN_BE_MASKED (loop_vinfo)) >>> >>>>>>> > + LOOP_VINFO_MASK_LOOP (loop_vinfo) = true; >>> >>>>>>> > return; >>> >>>>>>> > } >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > the unlimited_cost_model case should come first? OTOH masking or >>> >>>>>>> > not is probably not sth covered by 'unlimited' - that is about >>> >>>>>>> > vectorizing or not. But the above code means that for >>> >>>>>>> > epilogue vectorization w/o masking we ignore unlimited_cost_model ()? >>> >>>>>>> > That doesn't make sense to me. >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > Plus if this is short-trip or epilogue vectorization and the >>> >>>>>>> > cost model is _not_ unlimited then we dont' want to enable >>> >>>>>>> > masking always (if it is possible). It might be we statically >>> >>>>>>> > know the epilogue executes for at most two iterations for example. >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > I don't see _any_ cost model for vectorizing the epilogue with >>> >>>>>>> > masking? Am I missing something? A "trivial" cost model >>> >>>>>>> > should at least consider the additional IV(s), the mask >>> >>>>>>> > compute and the widening and narrowing ops required. >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > diff --git a/gcc/tree-vect-loop-manip.c b/gcc/tree-vect-loop-manip.c >>> >>>>>>> > index e13d6a2..36be342 100644 >>> >>>>>>> > --- a/gcc/tree-vect-loop-manip.c >>> >>>>>>> > +++ b/gcc/tree-vect-loop-manip.c >>> >>>>>>> > @@ -1635,6 +1635,13 @@ vect_do_peeling (loop_vec_info loop_vinfo, tree >>> >>>>>>> > niters, tree nitersm1, >>> >>>>>>> > bool epilog_peeling = (LOOP_VINFO_PEELING_FOR_NITER (loop_vinfo) >>> >>>>>>> > || LOOP_VINFO_PEELING_FOR_GAPS (loop_vinfo)); >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > + if (LOOP_VINFO_EPILOGUE_P (loop_vinfo)) >>> >>>>>>> > + { >>> >>>>>>> > + prolog_peeling = false; >>> >>>>>>> > + if (LOOP_VINFO_MASK_LOOP (loop_vinfo)) >>> >>>>>>> > + epilog_peeling = false; >>> >>>>>>> > + } >>> >>>>>>> > + >>> >>>>>>> > if (!prolog_peeling && !epilog_peeling) >>> >>>>>>> > return NULL; >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > I think the prolog_peeling was fixed during the epilogue vectorization >>> >>>>>>> > review and should no longer be necessary. Please add >>> >>>>>>> > a && ! LOOP_VINFO_MASK_LOOP () to the epilog_peeling init instead >>> >>>>>>> > (it should also work for short-trip loop vectorization). >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > @@ -2022,11 +2291,18 @@ start_over: >>> >>>>>>> > || (max_niter != -1 >>> >>>>>>> > && (unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT) max_niter < vectorization_factor)) >>> >>>>>>> > { >>> >>>>>>> > - if (dump_enabled_p ()) >>> >>>>>>> > - dump_printf_loc (MSG_MISSED_OPTIMIZATION, vect_location, >>> >>>>>>> > - "not vectorized: iteration count smaller than " >>> >>>>>>> > - "vectorization factor.\n"); >>> >>>>>>> > - return false; >>> >>>>>>> > + /* Allow low trip count for loop epilogue we want to mask. */ >>> >>>>>>> > + if (LOOP_VINFO_EPILOGUE_P (loop_vinfo) >>> >>>>>>> > + && PARAM_VALUE (PARAM_VECT_EPILOGUES_MASK)) >>> >>>>>>> > + LOOP_VINFO_MASK_LOOP (loop_vinfo) = true; >>> >>>>>>> > + else >>> >>>>>>> > + { >>> >>>>>>> > + if (dump_enabled_p ()) >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > so why do we test only LOOP_VINFO_EPILOGUE_P here? All the code >>> >>>>>>> > I saw sofar would also work for the main loop (but the cost >>> >>>>>>> > model is missing). >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > I am missing testcases. There's only a single one but we should >>> >>>>>>> > have cases covering all kinds of mask IV widths and widen/shorten >>> >>>>>>> > masks. >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > Do you have any numbers on SPEC 2k6 with epilogue vect and/or masking >>> >>>>>>> > enabled for an AVX2 machine? >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > Oh, and I really dislike the --param paywall. >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > Thanks, >>> >>>>>>> > Richard. >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> >> Best regards. >>> >>>>>>> >> Yuri. >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> 2016-11-28 17:39 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener : >>> >>>>>>> >> > On Thu, 24 Nov 2016, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote: >>> >>>>>>> >> > >>> >>>>>>> >> >> Hi All, >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> Here is the second patch which supports epilogue vectorization using >>> >>>>>>> >> >> masking without cost model. Currently it is possible >>> >>>>>>> >> >> only with passing parameter "--param vect-epilogues-mask=1". >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> Bootstrapping and regression testing did not show any new regression. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> Any comments will be appreciated. >>> >>>>>>> >> > >>> >>>>>>> >> > Going over the patch the main question is one how it works -- it looks >>> >>>>>>> >> > like the decision whether to vectorize & mask the epilogue is made >>> >>>>>>> >> > when vectorizing the loop that generates the epilogue rather than >>> >>>>>>> >> > in the epilogue vectorization path? >>> >>>>>>> >> > >>> >>>>>>> >> > That is, I'd have expected to see this handling low-trip count loops >>> >>>>>>> >> > by masking? And thus masking the epilogue simply by it being >>> >>>>>>> >> > low-trip count? >>> >>>>>>> >> > >>> >>>>>>> >> > Richard. >>> >>>>>>> >> > >>> >>>>>>> >> >> ChangeLog: >>> >>>>>>> >> >> 2016-11-24 Yuri Rumyantsev >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> * params.def (PARAM_VECT_EPILOGUES_MASK): New. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> * tree-vect-data-refs.c (vect_get_new_ssa_name): Support vect_mask_var. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> * tree-vect-loop.c: Include insn-config.h, recog.h and alias.h. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> (new_loop_vec_info): Add zeroing can_be_masked, mask_loop and >>> >>>>>>> >> >> required_mask fields. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> (vect_check_required_masks_widening): New. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> (vect_check_required_masks_narrowing): New. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> (vect_get_masking_iv_elems): New. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> (vect_get_masking_iv_type): New. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> (vect_get_extreme_masks): New. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> (vect_check_required_masks): New. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> (vect_analyze_loop_operations): Call vect_check_required_masks if all >>> >>>>>>> >> >> statements can be masked. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> (vect_analyze_loop_2): Inititalize to zero min_scalar_loop_bound. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> Add check that epilogue can be masked with the same vf with issue >>> >>>>>>> >> >> fail notes. Allow epilogue vectorization through masking of low trip >>> >>>>>>> >> >> loops. Set to true can_be_masked field before loop operation analysis. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> Do not set-up min_scalar_loop_bound for epilogue vectorization through >>> >>>>>>> >> >> masking. Do not peeling for epilogue masking. Reset can_be_masked >>> >>>>>>> >> >> field before repeat analysis. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> (vect_estimate_min_profitable_iters): Do not compute profitability >>> >>>>>>> >> >> for epilogue masking. Set up mask_loop filed to true if parameter >>> >>>>>>> >> >> PARAM_VECT_EPILOGUES_MASK is non-zero. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> (vectorizable_reduction): Add check that statement can be masked. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> (vectorizable_induction): Do not support masking for induction. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> (vect_gen_ivs_for_masking): New. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> (vect_get_mask_index_for_elems): New. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> (vect_get_mask_index_for_type): New. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> (vect_create_narrowed_masks): New. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> (vect_create_widened_masks): New. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> (vect_gen_loop_masks): New. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> (vect_mask_reduction_stmt): New. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> (vect_mask_mask_load_store_stmt): New. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> (vect_mask_load_store_stmt): New. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> (vect_mask_loop): New. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> (vect_transform_loop): Invoke vect_mask_loop if required. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> Use div_ceil to recompute upper bounds for masked loops. Issue >>> >>>>>>> >> >> statistics for epilogue vectorization through masking. Do not reduce >>> >>>>>>> >> >> vf for masking epilogue. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> * tree-vect-stmts.c: Include tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.h. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> (can_mask_load_store): New. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> (vectorizable_mask_load_store): Check that mask conjuction is >>> >>>>>>> >> >> supported. Set-up first_copy_p field of stmt_vinfo. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> (vectorizable_simd_clone_call): Check that simd clone can not be >>> >>>>>>> >> >> masked. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> (vectorizable_store): Check that store can be masked. Mark the first >>> >>>>>>> >> >> copy of generated vector stores and provide it with vectype and the >>> >>>>>>> >> >> original data reference. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> (vectorizable_load): Check that load can be masked. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> (vect_stmt_should_be_masked_for_epilogue): New. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> (vect_add_required_mask_for_stmt): New. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> (vect_analyze_stmt): Add check on unsupported statements for masking >>> >>>>>>> >> >> with printing message. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> * tree-vectorizer.h (struct _loop_vec_info): Add new fields >>> >>>>>>> >> >> can_be_maske, required_masks, masl_loop. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> (LOOP_VINFO_CAN_BE_MASKED): New. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> (LOOP_VINFO_REQUIRED_MASKS): New. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> (LOOP_VINFO_MASK_LOOP): New. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> (struct _stmt_vec_info): Add first_copy_p field. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> (STMT_VINFO_FIRST_COPY_P): New. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> gcc/testsuite/ >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-tail-mask-1.c: New test. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> 2016-11-18 18:54 GMT+03:00 Christophe Lyon : >>> >>>>>>> >> >> > On 18 November 2016 at 16:46, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote: >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >> It is very strange that this test failed on arm, since it requires >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >> target avx2 to check vectorizer dumps: >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >> /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "LOOP VECTORIZED" 2 "vect" { >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >> target avx2_runtime } } } */ >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >> /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "LOOP EPILOGUE VECTORIZED >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >> \\(VS=16\\)" 2 "vect" { target avx2_runtime } } } */ >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >> Could you please clarify what is the reason of the failure? >>> >>>>>>> >> >> > >>> >>>>>>> >> >> > It's not the scan-dumps that fail, but the execution. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> > The test calls abort() for some reason. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> > >>> >>>>>>> >> >> > It will take me a while to rebuild the test manually in the right >>> >>>>>>> >> >> > debug environment to provide you with more traces. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> > >>> >>>>>>> >> >> > >>> >>>>>>> >> >> > >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >> Thanks. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >> 2016-11-18 16:20 GMT+03:00 Christophe Lyon : >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>> On 15 November 2016 at 15:41, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote: >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>> Hi All, >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>> Here is patch for non-masked epilogue vectoriziation. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>> Bootstrap and regression testing did not show any new failures. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>> Is it OK for trunk? >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>> Thanks. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>> Changelog: >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>> 2016-11-15 Yuri Rumyantsev >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>> * params.def (PARAM_VECT_EPILOGUES_NOMASK): New. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>> * tree-if-conv.c (tree_if_conversion): Make public. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>> * * tree-if-conv.h: New file. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>> * tree-vect-data-refs.c (vect_analyze_data_ref_dependences) Avoid >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>> dynamic alias checks for epilogues. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>> * tree-vect-loop-manip.c (vect_do_peeling): Return created epilog. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>> * tree-vect-loop.c: include tree-if-conv.h. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>> (new_loop_vec_info): Add zeroing orig_loop_info field. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>> (vect_analyze_loop_2): Don't try to enhance alignment for epilogues. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>> (vect_analyze_loop): Add argument ORIG_LOOP_INFO which is not NULL >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>> if epilogue is vectorized, set up orig_loop_info field of loop_vinfo >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>> using passed argument. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>> (vect_transform_loop): Check if created epilogue should be returned >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>> for further vectorization with less vf. If-convert epilogue if >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>> required. Print vectorization success for epilogue. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>> * tree-vectorizer.c (vectorize_loops): Add epilogue vectorization >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>> if it is required, pass loop_vinfo produced during vectorization of >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>> loop body to vect_analyze_loop. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>> * tree-vectorizer.h (struct _loop_vec_info): Add new field >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>> orig_loop_info. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>> (LOOP_VINFO_ORIG_LOOP_INFO): New. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>> (LOOP_VINFO_EPILOGUE_P): New. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>> (LOOP_VINFO_ORIG_VECT_FACTOR): New. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>> (vect_do_peeling): Change prototype to return epilogue. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>> (vect_analyze_loop): Add argument of loop_vec_info type. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>> (vect_transform_loop): Return created loop. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>> gcc/testsuite/ >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>> * lib/target-supports.exp (check_avx2_hw_available): New. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>> (check_effective_target_avx2_runtime): New. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-tail-nomask-1.c: New test. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>> Hi, >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>> This new test fails on arm-none-eabi (using default cpu/fpu/mode): >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>> gcc.dg/vect/vect-tail-nomask-1.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects execution test >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>> gcc.dg/vect/vect-tail-nomask-1.c execution test >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>> It does pass on the same target if configured --with-cpu=cortex-a9. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>> Christophe >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>> 2016-11-14 20:04 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener : >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>> On November 14, 2016 4:39:40 PM GMT+01:00, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote: >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>Richard, >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>I checked one of the tests designed for epilogue vectorization using >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>patches 1 - 3 and found out that build compiler performs vectorization >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>of epilogues with --param vect-epilogues-nomask=1 passed: >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>$ gcc -Ofast -mavx2 t1.c -S --param vect-epilogues-nomask=1 -o >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>t1.new-nomask.s -fdump-tree-vect-details >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>$ grep VECTORIZED -c t1.c.156t.vect >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>4 >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> Without param only 2 loops are vectorized. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>Should I simply add a part of tests related to this feature or I must >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>delete all not necessary changes also? >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>> Please remove all not necessary changes. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>> Richard. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>Thanks. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>Yuri. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>2016-11-14 16:40 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener : >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Nov 2016, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote: >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> Richard, >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> In my previous patch I forgot to remove couple lines related to aux >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>field. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> Here is the correct updated patch. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> Yeah, I noticed. This patch would be ok for trunk (together with >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> necessary parts from 1 and 2) if all not required parts are removed >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> (and you'd add the testcases covering non-masked tail vect). >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> Thus, can you please produce a single complete patch containing only >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> non-masked epilogue vectoriziation? >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> Richard. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> Thanks. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> Yuri. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> 2016-11-14 15:51 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener : >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> > On Fri, 11 Nov 2016, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote: >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> Richard, >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> I prepare updated 3 patch with passing additional argument to >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> vect_analyze_loop as you proposed (untested). >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> You wrote: >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> tw, I wonder if you can produce a single patch containing just >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> epilogue vectorization, that is combine patches 1-3 but rip out >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> changes only needed by later patches? >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> Did you mean that I exclude all support for vectorization >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>epilogues, >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> i.e. exclude from 2-nd patch all non-related changes >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> like >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> diff --git a/gcc/tree-vect-loop.c b/gcc/tree-vect-loop.c >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> index 11863af..32011c1 100644 >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> --- a/gcc/tree-vect-loop.c >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> +++ b/gcc/tree-vect-loop.c >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> @@ -1120,6 +1120,12 @@ new_loop_vec_info (struct loop *loop) >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> LOOP_VINFO_PEELING_FOR_GAPS (res) = false; >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> LOOP_VINFO_PEELING_FOR_NITER (res) = false; >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> LOOP_VINFO_OPERANDS_SWAPPED (res) = false; >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> + LOOP_VINFO_CAN_BE_MASKED (res) = false; >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> + LOOP_VINFO_REQUIRED_MASKS (res) = 0; >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> + LOOP_VINFO_COMBINE_EPILOGUE (res) = false; >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> + LOOP_VINFO_MASK_EPILOGUE (res) = false; >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> + LOOP_VINFO_NEED_MASKING (res) = false; >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> + LOOP_VINFO_ORIG_LOOP_INFO (res) = NULL; >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> > Yes. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> Did you mean also that new combined patch must be working patch, >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>i.e. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> can be integrated without other patches? >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> > Yes. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> Could you please look at updated patch? >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> > Will do. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> > Thanks, >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> > Richard. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> Thanks. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> Yuri. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> 2016-11-10 15:36 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener : >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> > On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Richard Biener wrote: >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> > >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> On Tue, 8 Nov 2016, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote: >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > Richard, >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > Here is updated 3 patch. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > I checked that all new tests related to epilogue >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>vectorization passed with it. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > Your comments will be appreciated. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> A lot better now. Instead of the ->aux dance I now prefer to >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> pass the original loops loop_vinfo to vect_analyze_loop as >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> optional argument (if non-NULL we analyze the epilogue of that >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> loop_vinfo). OTOH I remember we mainly use it to get at the >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> original vectorization factor? So we can pass down an >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>(optional) >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> forced vectorization factor as well? >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> > >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> > Btw, I wonder if you can produce a single patch containing just >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> > epilogue vectorization, that is combine patches 1-3 but rip out >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> > changes only needed by later patches? >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> > >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> > Thanks, >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> > Richard. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> > >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> Richard. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > 2016-11-08 15:38 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>: >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > > On Thu, 3 Nov 2016, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote: >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > > >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> Hi Richard, >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> I did not understand your last remark: >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > That is, here (and avoid the FOR_EACH_LOOP change): >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > @@ -580,12 +586,21 @@ vectorize_loops (void) >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > && dump_enabled_p ()) >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > dump_printf_loc (MSG_OPTIMIZED_LOCATIONS, >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>vect_location, >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > "loop vectorized\n"); >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > - vect_transform_loop (loop_vinfo); >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > + new_loop = vect_transform_loop (loop_vinfo); >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > num_vectorized_loops++; >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > /* Now that the loop has been vectorized, allow >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>it to be unrolled >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > etc. */ >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > loop->force_vectorize = false; >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > + /* Add new loop to a processing queue. To make >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>it easier >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > + to match loop and its epilogue vectorization >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>in dumps >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > + put new loop as the next loop to process. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>*/ >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > + if (new_loop) >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > + { >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > + loops.safe_insert (i + 1, new_loop->num); >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > + vect_loops_num = number_of_loops (cfun); >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > + } >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > simply dispatch to a vectorize_epilogue (loop_vinfo, >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>new_loop) >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> f> unction which will set up stuff properly (and also >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>perform >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > the if-conversion of the epilogue there). >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > That said, if we can get in non-masked epilogue >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>vectorization >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > separately that would be great. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> Could you please clarify your proposal. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > > >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > > When a loop was vectorized set things up to immediately >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>vectorize >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > > its epilogue, avoiding changing the loop iteration and >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>avoiding >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > > the re-use of ->aux. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > > >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > > Richard. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > > >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> Thanks. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> Yuri. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> 2016-11-02 15:27 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>: >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > On Tue, 1 Nov 2016, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote: >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> >> Hi All, >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> >> I re-send all patches sent by Ilya earlier for review >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>which support >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> >> vectorization of loop epilogues and loops with low >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>trip count. We >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> >> assume that the only patch - >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>vec-tails-07-combine-tail.patch - was not >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> >> approved by Jeff. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> >> I did re-base of all patches and performed >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>bootstrapping and >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> >> regression testing that did not show any new failures. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>Also all >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> >> changes related to new vect_do_peeling algorithm have >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>been changed >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> >> accordingly. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> >> Is it OK for trunk? >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > I would have prefered that the series up to >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>-03-nomask-tails would >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > _only_ contain epilogue loop vectorization changes but >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>unfortunately >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > the patchset is oddly separated. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > I have a comment on that part nevertheless: >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > @@ -1608,7 +1614,10 @@ vect_enhance_data_refs_alignment >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>(loop_vec_info >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > loop_vinfo) >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > /* Check if we can possibly peel the loop. */ >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > if (!vect_can_advance_ivs_p (loop_vinfo) >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > || !slpeel_can_duplicate_loop_p (loop, >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>single_exit (loop)) >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > - || loop->inner) >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > + || loop->inner >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > + /* Required peeling was performed in prologue >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>and >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > + is not required for epilogue. */ >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > + || LOOP_VINFO_EPILOGUE_P (loop_vinfo)) >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > do_peeling = false; >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > if (do_peeling >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > @@ -1888,7 +1897,10 @@ vect_enhance_data_refs_alignment >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>(loop_vec_info >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > loop_vinfo) >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > do_versioning = >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > optimize_loop_nest_for_speed_p (loop) >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > - && (!loop->inner); /* FORNOW */ >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > + && (!loop->inner) /* FORNOW */ >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > + /* Required versioning was performed for the >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > + original loop and is not required for >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>epilogue. */ >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > + && !LOOP_VINFO_EPILOGUE_P (loop_vinfo); >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > if (do_versioning) >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > { >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > please do that check in the single caller of this >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>function. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > Otherwise I still dislike the new ->aux use and I >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>believe that simply >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > passing down info from the processed parent would be >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>_much_ cleaner. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > That is, here (and avoid the FOR_EACH_LOOP change): >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > @@ -580,12 +586,21 @@ vectorize_loops (void) >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > && dump_enabled_p ()) >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > dump_printf_loc (MSG_OPTIMIZED_LOCATIONS, >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>vect_location, >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > "loop vectorized\n"); >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > - vect_transform_loop (loop_vinfo); >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > + new_loop = vect_transform_loop (loop_vinfo); >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > num_vectorized_loops++; >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > /* Now that the loop has been vectorized, allow >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>it to be unrolled >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > etc. */ >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > loop->force_vectorize = false; >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > + /* Add new loop to a processing queue. To make >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>it easier >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > + to match loop and its epilogue vectorization >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>in dumps >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > + put new loop as the next loop to process. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>*/ >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > + if (new_loop) >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > + { >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > + loops.safe_insert (i + 1, new_loop->num); >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > + vect_loops_num = number_of_loops (cfun); >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > + } >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > simply dispatch to a vectorize_epilogue (loop_vinfo, >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>new_loop) >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > function which will set up stuff properly (and also >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>perform >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > the if-conversion of the epilogue there). >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > That said, if we can get in non-masked epilogue >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>vectorization >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > separately that would be great. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > I'm still torn about all the rest of the stuff and >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>question its >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > usability (esp. merging the epilogue with the main >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>vector loop). >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > But it has already been approved ... oh well. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > Thanks, >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> > Richard. >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > > >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > > -- >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > > Richard Biener >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > > SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg) >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> > >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> > -- >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> > Richard Biener >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> > SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Graham >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg) >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> > -- >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> > Richard Biener >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> > SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Graham >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg) >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> -- >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> Richard Biener >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Graham >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg) >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> > >>> >>>>>>> >> > -- >>> >>>>>>> >> > Richard Biener >>> >>>>>>> >> > SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg) >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > -- >>> >>>>>>> > Richard Biener >>> >>>>>>> > SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg) >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> -- >>> >>>>>> Richard Biener >>> >>>>>> SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg) >>> >> >> -- >> Richard Biener >> SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg) --001a11433cae6bfc5505442db4eb Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="nomask.patch" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="nomask.patch" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 X-Attachment-Id: f_iwz5r1mc1 Content-length: 6007 ZGlmZiAtLWdpdCBhL2djYy90ZXN0c3VpdGUvZ2NjLmRnL3ZlY3QvdmVjLXRh aWwtbm9tYXNrLTIuYyBiL2djYy90ZXN0c3VpdGUvZ2NjLmRnL3ZlY3QvdmVj LXRhaWwtbm9tYXNrLTIuYwpuZXcgZmlsZSBtb2RlIDEwMDc1NQppbmRleCAw MDAwMDAwLi40N2JiNGI3Ci0tLSAvZGV2L251bGwKKysrIGIvZ2NjL3Rlc3Rz dWl0ZS9nY2MuZGcvdmVjdC92ZWMtdGFpbC1ub21hc2stMi5jCkBAIC0wLDAg KzEsMTU1IEBACisvKiB7IGRnLWRvIHJ1biB9ICovCisvKiB7IGRnLXJlcXVp cmUtd2VhayAiIiB9ICovCisvKiB7IGRnLWFkZGl0aW9uYWwtb3B0aW9ucyAi LWZmYXN0LW1hdGggLS1wYXJhbSB2ZWN0LWVwaWxvZ3Vlcy1ub21hc2s9MSAt bWF2eDIiIHsgdGFyZ2V0IGF2eDJfcnVudGltZSB9IH0gKi8KKworI2RlZmlu ZSBTSVpFIDEwMjMKKyNkZWZpbmUgQUxJR04gNjQKKworZXh0ZXJuIGludCBw b3NpeF9tZW1hbGlnbih2b2lkICoqbWVtcHRyLCBfX1NJWkVfVFlQRV9fIGFs aWdubWVudCwgX19TSVpFX1RZUEVfXyBzaXplKTsKK2V4dGVybiB2b2lkIGZy ZWUgKHZvaWQgKik7CisKK2RvdWJsZSBfX2F0dHJpYnV0ZV9fKChub2lubGlu ZSkpCit0ZXN0X2NpdGVyIChpbnQgKiBfX3Jlc3RyaWN0X18gYSwKKwkgICAg bG9uZyBsb25nICogX19yZXN0cmljdF9fIGIsCisJICAgIGZsb2F0ICogX19y ZXN0cmljdF9fIGMsCisJICAgIGRvdWJsZSAqIF9fcmVzdHJpY3RfXyBkKQor eworICBkb3VibGUgcmVzID0gMDsKKyAgaW50IGk7CisKKyAgYSA9IChpbnQg KilfX2J1aWx0aW5fYXNzdW1lX2FsaWduZWQgKGEsIEFMSUdOKTsKKyAgYiA9 IChsb25nIGxvbmcgKilfX2J1aWx0aW5fYXNzdW1lX2FsaWduZWQgKGIsIEFM SUdOKTsKKyAgYyA9IChmbG9hdCAqKV9fYnVpbHRpbl9hc3N1bWVfYWxpZ25l ZCAoYywgQUxJR04pOworICBkID0gKGRvdWJsZSAqKV9fYnVpbHRpbl9hc3N1 bWVfYWxpZ25lZCAoZCwgQUxJR04pOworCisgIGZvciAoaSA9IDA7IGkgPCBT SVpFOyBpKyspCisgICAgeworICAgICAgYVtpXSA9IGNbaV0gKyAxOworICAg ICAgaWYgKGJbaV0gPCAwKQorCXJlcyArPSBkW2ldOworICAgIH0KKworICBy ZXR1cm4gcmVzOworfQorCitkb3VibGUgX19hdHRyaWJ1dGVfXygobm9pbmxp bmUpKQordGVzdF92aXRlciAoaW50ICogX19yZXN0cmljdF9fIGEsCisJICAg IGxvbmcgbG9uZyAqIF9fcmVzdHJpY3RfXyBiLAorCSAgICBmbG9hdCAqIF9f cmVzdHJpY3RfXyBjLAorCSAgICBkb3VibGUgKiBfX3Jlc3RyaWN0X18gZCwK KwkgICAgaW50IHNpemUpCit7CisgIGRvdWJsZSByZXMgPSAwOworICBpbnQg aTsKKworICBhID0gKGludCAqKV9fYnVpbHRpbl9hc3N1bWVfYWxpZ25lZCAo YSwgQUxJR04pOworICBiID0gKGxvbmcgbG9uZyAqKV9fYnVpbHRpbl9hc3N1 bWVfYWxpZ25lZCAoYiwgQUxJR04pOworICBjID0gKGZsb2F0ICopX19idWls dGluX2Fzc3VtZV9hbGlnbmVkIChjLCBBTElHTik7CisgIGQgPSAoZG91Ymxl ICopX19idWlsdGluX2Fzc3VtZV9hbGlnbmVkIChkLCBBTElHTik7CisKKyAg Zm9yIChpID0gMDsgaSA8IHNpemU7IGkrKykKKyAgICB7CisgICAgICBhW2ld ID0gY1tpXSArIDE7CisgICAgICBpZiAoYltpXSA8IDApCisJcmVzICs9IGRb aV07CisgICAgfQorCisgIHJldHVybiByZXM7Cit9CisKK3ZvaWQgX19hdHRy aWJ1dGVfXygobm9pbmxpbmUpKQoraW5pdF9kYXRhIChpbnQgKiBfX3Jlc3Ry aWN0X18gYSwKKwkgICBsb25nIGxvbmcgKiBfX3Jlc3RyaWN0X18gYiwKKwkg ICBmbG9hdCAqIF9fcmVzdHJpY3RfXyBjLAorCSAgIGRvdWJsZSAqIF9fcmVz dHJpY3RfXyBkLAorCSAgIGludCBzaXplKQoreworICBpbnQgaTsKKyAgZm9y IChpID0gMDsgaSA8IHNpemU7IGkrKykKKyAgICB7CisgICAgICBpZiAoaSAl IDIpCisJeworCSAgYVtpXSA9IDA7CisJICBiW2ldID0gaTsKKwkgIGNbaV0g PSAyLjU7CisJICBkW2ldID0gMTsKKwl9CisgICAgICBlbHNlCisJeworCSAg YVtpXSA9IDA7CisJICBiW2ldID0gLWk7CisJICBjW2ldID0gMi41OworCSAg ZFtpXSA9IC0xOworCX0KKyAgICAgIGFzbSB2b2xhdGlsZSgiIjogOiA6Im1l bW9yeSIpOworICAgIH0KKyAgYVtzaXplXSA9IChpbnQpc2l6ZTsKKyAgYltz aXplXSA9IChsb25nIGxvbmcpc2l6ZTsKKyAgY1tzaXplXSA9IChmbG9hdClz aXplOworICBkW3NpemVdID0gKGRvdWJsZSlzaXplOworfQorCit2b2lkIF9f YXR0cmlidXRlX18oKG5vaW5saW5lKSkKK3J1bl90ZXN0ICgpCit7CisgIGlu dCAqYTsKKyAgbG9uZyBsb25nICpiOworICBmbG9hdCAqYzsKKyAgZG91Ymxl ICpkOworICBkb3VibGUgcmVzOworICBpbnQgaTsKKworICBpZiAocG9zaXhf bWVtYWxpZ24gKCh2b2lkICoqKSZhLCBBTElHTiwgKFNJWkUgKyAxKSAqIHNp emVvZiAoaW50KSkgIT0gMCkKKyAgICByZXR1cm47CisgIGlmIChwb3NpeF9t ZW1hbGlnbiAoKHZvaWQgKiopJmIsIEFMSUdOLCAoU0laRSArIDEpICogc2l6 ZW9mIChsb25nIGxvbmcpKSAhPSAwKQorICAgIHJldHVybjsKKyAgaWYgKHBv c2l4X21lbWFsaWduICgodm9pZCAqKikmYywgQUxJR04sIChTSVpFICsgMSkg KiBzaXplb2YgKGZsb2F0KSkgIT0gMCkKKyAgICByZXR1cm47CisgIGlmIChw b3NpeF9tZW1hbGlnbiAoKHZvaWQgKiopJmQsIEFMSUdOLCAoU0laRSArIDEp ICogc2l6ZW9mIChkb3VibGUpKSAhPSAwKQorICAgIHJldHVybjsKKworICBp bml0X2RhdGEgKGEsIGIsIGMsIGQsIFNJWkUpOworICByZXMgPSB0ZXN0X2Np dGVyIChhLCBiLCBjLCBkKTsKKyAgcmVzICs9IFNJWkUgLyAyOworICBpZiAo cmVzID4gMC4wMSB8fCByZXMgPCAtMC4wMSkKKyAgICBfX2J1aWx0aW5fYWJv cnQgKCk7CisgIGZvciAoaSA9IDA7IGkgPCBTSVpFOyBpKyspCisgICAgaWYg KGFbaV0gIT0gMykKKyAgICAgIF9fYnVpbHRpbl9hYm9ydCAoKTsKKyAgaWYg KGFbU0laRV0gIT0gKGludClTSVpFCisgICAgICB8fCBiW1NJWkVdICE9IChs b25nIGxvbmcpU0laRQorICAgICAgfHwgY1tTSVpFXSAhPSAoZmxvYXQpU0la RQorICAgICAgfHwgZFtTSVpFXSAhPSAoZG91YmxlKVNJWkUpCisgICAgX19i dWlsdGluX2Fib3J0ICgpOworCisgIGluaXRfZGF0YSAoYSwgYiwgYywgZCwg U0laRSk7CisgIHJlcyA9IHRlc3Rfdml0ZXIgKGEsIGIsIGMsIGQsIFNJWkUp OworICByZXMgKz0gU0laRSAvIDI7CisgIGlmIChyZXMgPiAwLjAxIHx8IHJl cyA8IC0wLjAxKQorICAgIF9fYnVpbHRpbl9hYm9ydCAoKTsKKyAgZm9yIChp ID0gMDsgaSA8IFNJWkU7IGkrKykKKyAgICBpZiAoYVtpXSAhPSAzKQorICAg ICAgX19idWlsdGluX2Fib3J0ICgpOworICBpZiAoYVtTSVpFXSAhPSAoaW50 KVNJWkUKKyAgICAgIHx8IGJbU0laRV0gIT0gKGxvbmcgbG9uZylTSVpFCisg ICAgICB8fCBjW1NJWkVdICE9IChmbG9hdClTSVpFCisgICAgICB8fCBkW1NJ WkVdICE9IChkb3VibGUpU0laRSkKKyAgICBfX2J1aWx0aW5fYWJvcnQgKCk7 CisKKyAgZnJlZSAoYSk7CisgIGZyZWUgKGIpOworICBmcmVlIChjKTsKK30K KworaW50CittYWluIChpbnQgYXJnYywgY29uc3QgY2hhciAqKmFyZ3YpCit7 CisgIGlmICghcG9zaXhfbWVtYWxpZ24pCisgICAgcmV0dXJuIDA7CisKKyAg cnVuX3Rlc3QgKCk7CisgIHJldHVybiAwOworfQorCisvKiB7IGRnLWZpbmFs IHsgc2Nhbi10cmVlLWR1bXAtdGltZXMgIkxPT1AgVkVDVE9SSVpFRCBcXChW Uz0zMlxcKSIgMiAidmVjdCIgeyB0YXJnZXQgYXZ4Ml9ydW50aW1lIH0gfSB9 ICovCisvKiB7IGRnLWZpbmFsIHsgc2Nhbi10cmVlLWR1bXAtdGltZXMgIkxP T1AgRVBJTE9HVUUgVkVDVE9SSVpFRCBcXChWUz0xNlxcKSIgMiAidmVjdCIg eyB0YXJnZXQgYXZ4Ml9ydW50aW1lIH0gfSB9ICovCmRpZmYgLS1naXQgYS9n Y2MvdHJlZS12ZWN0b3JpemVyLmMgYi9nY2MvdHJlZS12ZWN0b3JpemVyLmMK aW5kZXggNzUzOGM2Yy4uMzk3NjJjYiAxMDA2NDQKLS0tIGEvZ2NjL3RyZWUt dmVjdG9yaXplci5jCisrKyBiL2djYy90cmVlLXZlY3Rvcml6ZXIuYwpAQCAt NTQwLDggKzU0MCw4IEBAIHZlY3Rvcml6ZV9sb29wcyAodm9pZCkKIAkgICAg IHx8IGxvb3AtPmZvcmNlX3ZlY3Rvcml6ZSkKICAgICAgIHsKIAlsb29wX3Zl Y19pbmZvIGxvb3BfdmluZm8sIG9yaWdfbG9vcF92aW5mbyA9IE5VTEw7Ci0J Z2ltcGxlICpsb29wX3ZlY3Rvcml6ZWRfY2FsbCA9IHZlY3RfbG9vcF92ZWN0 b3JpemVkX2NhbGwgKGxvb3ApOwogdmVjdG9yaXplX2VwaWxvZ3VlOgorCWdp bXBsZSAqbG9vcF92ZWN0b3JpemVkX2NhbGwgPSB2ZWN0X2xvb3BfdmVjdG9y aXplZF9jYWxsIChsb29wKTsKIAl2ZWN0X2xvY2F0aW9uID0gZmluZF9sb29w X2xvY2F0aW9uIChsb29wKTsKICAgICAgICAgaWYgKExPQ0FUSU9OX0xPQ1VT ICh2ZWN0X2xvY2F0aW9uKSAhPSBVTktOT1dOX0xPQ0FUSU9OCiAJICAgICYm IGR1bXBfZW5hYmxlZF9wICgpKQo= --001a11433cae6bfc5505442db4eb--