Hi All,

Here is updated patch containing missed change in
slpeel_tree_peel_loop_to_edge which prevents renaming of exit PHI uses
in inner loop.

ChangeLog:
2015-06-29  Yuri Rumyantsev  <ysrumyan@gmail.com>

* tree-vect-loop-manip.c (rename_variables_in_bb): Add argument
to allow renaming of PHI arguments on edges incoming from outer
loop header, add corresponding check before start PHI iterator.
(slpeel_tree_duplicate_loop_to_edge_cfg): Introduce new bool
variable DUPLICATE_OUTER_LOOP and set it to true for outer loops
with true force_vectorize.  Set-up dominator for outer loop too.
Pass DUPLICATE_OUTER_LOOP as argument to rename_variables_in_bb.
(slpeel_can_duplicate_loop_p): Allow duplicate of outer loop if it
was marked with force_vectorize and has restricted cfg.
(slpeel_tree_peel_loop_to_edge): Do not rename exit PHI uses in
inner loop.
* tree-vect-data-refs.c (vect_enhance_data_refs_alignment): Do not
do peeling for outer loops.

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-simd-2.c: New test.

2015-06-17 19:35 GMT+03:00 Yuri Rumyantsev <ysrumyan@gmail.com>:
> Richard,
>
> I attached updated patch.
> You asked me to explain why I did changes for renaming.
> If we do not change PHI arguments for inner loop header we can get the
> following IR:
> source outer loop:
>   <bb 5>: outer-loop header
>   # i_45 = PHI <0(4), i_18(9)>
>   # .MEM_17 = PHI <.MEM_4(D)(4), .MEM_44(9)>
>
>   <bb 6>:inner-loop header
>   # .MEM_46 = PHI <.MEM_44(7), .MEM_17(5)>
>
> after duplication we have (without argument correction):
>   <bb 12>:
>   # i_74 = PHI <i_64(13), 0(17)>
>   # .MEM_73 = PHI <.MEM_97(13), .MEM_4(D)(17)>
>
>   <bb 15>:
>   # .MEM_63 = PHI <.MEM_17(12), .MEM_97(16)>
>
> and later we get verifier error:
> test1.c:20:6: error: definition in block 6 does not dominate use in block 10
>  void foo (int n)
>       ^
> for SSA_NAME: .MEM_17 in statement:
> .MEM_63 = PHI <.MEM_17(10), .MEM_97(14)>
>
> and you can see that we need to rename MEM_17 argument for out-coming
> edge to MEM_73 since
> MEM_17 was converted to MEM_73 in outer-loop header.
>
> This explains my simple fix in rename_variables_in_bb.
> Note also that loop distribution is not performed for outer loops.
>
> I also did a change in slpeel_can_duplicate_loop_p to simplify check.
>
> Any comments will be appreciated.
>
> Yuri.
>
> 2015-06-17 15:24 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>:
>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Yuri Rumyantsev <ysrumyan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Thanks a lot Richard for your review.
>>>
>>> I presented updated patch which is not gated by force_vectorize.
>>> I added test on outer-loop in vect_enhance_data_refs_alignment
>>> and it returns false for it because we can not improve dr alighment
>>> through outer-loop peeling in general. So I assume that only
>>> versioning for alignment can be applied for targets do not support
>>> unaligned memory access.
>>
>> @@ -998,7 +998,12 @@
>>    gimple stmt = DR_STMT (dr);
>>    stmt_vec_info stmt_info = vinfo_for_stmt (stmt);
>>    tree vectype = STMT_VINFO_VECTYPE (stmt_info);
>> +  loop_vec_info loop_vinfo = STMT_VINFO_LOOP_VINFO (stmt_info);
>>
>> +  /* Peeling of outer loops can't improve alignment.  */
>> +  if (loop_vinfo && LOOP_VINFO_LOOP (loop_vinfo)->inner)
>> +    return false;
>> +
>>
>> but this looks wrong.  It depends on the context (DRs in the outer loop
>> can improve alignment by peeling the outer loop and we can still
>> peel the inner loop for alignment).
>>
>> So IMHO the correct place to amend is vect_enhance_data_refs_alignment
>> (which it seems doesn't consider peeling the inner loop).
>>
>> I'd say you should simply add
>>
>>      || loop->inner)
>>
>> to the
>>
>>   /* 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)))
>>     do_peeling = false;
>>
>> check.
>>
>>> I did not change tests for outer loops in slpeel_can_duplicate_loop_p
>>> as you proposed since it is not called outside vectorization.
>>
>> There is still no reason for this complex condition, so please remove it.
>>
>> _Please_ also generate diffs with -p, it is very tedious to see patch hunks
>> without a function name context.
>>
>> You didn't explain why you needed the renaming changes as I don't
>> remember needing it when using the code from loop distribution.
>>
>>> I also noticed one not-resolved issue with outer-loop peeling - we don't
>>> consider remainder for possible vectorization of inner-loop as we can see
>>> on the following example:
>>>
>>>   for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
>>>     diff = 0;
>>>     for (j = 0; j < M; j++) {
>>>       diff += in[j+i]*coeff[j];
>>>     }
>>>     out[i] = diff;
>>>   }
>>>
>>> Is it worth to fix it?
>>
>> You mean vectorizing the inner loop in the niter peel epilogue loop
>> of the outer loop?  Possibly yes.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Richard.
>>
>>> 2015-06-16  Yuri Rumyantsev  <ysrumyan@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> * tree-vect-loop-manip.c (rename_variables_in_bb): Add argument
>>> to allow renaming of PHI arguments on edges incoming from outer
>>> loop header, add corresponding check before start PHI iterator.
>>> (slpeel_tree_duplicate_loop_to_edge_cfg): Introduce new bool
>>> variable DUPLICATE_OUTER_LOOP and set it to true for outer loops
>>> with true force_vectorize.  Set-up dominator for outer loop too.
>>> Pass DUPLICATE_OUTER_LOOP as argument to rename_variables_in_bb.
>>> (slpeel_can_duplicate_loop_p): Allow duplicate of outer loop if it
>>> was marked with force_vectorize and has restricted cfg.
>>> * tree-vect-data-refs.c (vector_alignment_reachable_p): Alignment can
>>> not be reachable for outer loops.
>>> (vect_enhance_data_refs_alignment): Add test on true value of
>>> do_peeling.
>>>
>>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-simd-2.c: New test.
>>>
>>> 2015-06-09 16:26 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>:
>>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Yuri Rumyantsev <ysrumyan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is a simple fix which allows duplication of outer loops to
>>>>> perform peeling for number of iterations if outer loop is marked with
>>>>> pragma omp simd.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bootstrap and regression testing did not show any new failures.
>>>>> Is it OK for trunk?
>>>>
>>>> Hmm, I don't remember needing to adjust rename_variables_in_bb
>>>> when teaching loop distibution to call slpeel_tree_duplicate_to_edge_cfg
>>>> on non-innermost loops...  (I just copied, I never called
>>>> slpeel_can_duplicate_loop_p though).
>>>>
>>>> So - you should just remove the loop->inner condition from
>>>> slpeel_can_duplicate_loop_p as it is used by non-vectorizer
>>>> code as well (yeah, I never merged the nested loop support
>>>> for loop distribution...).
>>>>
>>>> Index: tree-vect-loop.c
>>>> ===================================================================
>>>> --- tree-vect-loop.c    (revision 224100)
>>>> +++ tree-vect-loop.c    (working copy)
>>>> @@ -1879,6 +1879,10 @@
>>>>        return false;
>>>>      }
>>>>
>>>> +  /* Peeling for alignment is not supported for outer-loop vectorization.  */
>>>> +  if (LOOP_VINFO_LOOP (loop_vinfo)->inner)
>>>> +    LOOP_VINFO_PEELING_FOR_ALIGNMENT (loop_vinfo) = 0;
>>>>
>>>> I think you can't simply do this - if vect_enhance_data_refs_alignment
>>>> decided to peel for alignment then it has adjusted the DRs alignment
>>>> info already.  So instead of the above simply disallow peeling for
>>>> alignment in vect_enhance_data_refs_alignment?  Thus add
>>>> || ->inner to
>>>>
>>>>   /* 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)))
>>>>     do_peeling = false;
>>>>
>>>> ?
>>>>
>>>> I also can't see why the improvement has to be gated on force_vect,
>>>> it surely looks profitable to enable more outer loop vectorization in
>>>> general, no?
>>>>
>>>> How do the cost model calculations end up with peeling the outer loop
>>>> for niter?
>>>>
>>>> On targets which don't support unaligned accesses we're left with
>>>> versioning for alignment.  Isn't peeling for alignment better there?
>>>> Thus only disallow peeling for alignment if there is no unhandled
>>>> alignment?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Richard.
>>>>
>>>>> ChangeLog:
>>>>>
>>>>> 2015-06-08  Yuri Rumyantsev  <ysrumyan@gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> * tree-vect-loop-manip.c (rename_variables_in_bb): Add argument
>>>>> to allow renaming of PHI arguments on edges incoming from outer
>>>>> loop header, add corresponding check before start PHI iterator.
>>>>> (slpeel_tree_duplicate_loop_to_edge_cfg): Introduce new bool
>>>>> variable DUPLICATE_OUTER_LOOP and set it to true for outer loops
>>>>> with true force_vectorize.  Set-up dominator for outer loop too.
>>>>> Pass DUPLICATE_OUTER_LOOP as argument to rename_variables_in_bb.
>>>>> (slpeel_can_duplicate_loop_p): Allow duplicate of outer loop if it
>>>>> was marked with force_vectorize and has restricted cfg.
>>>>> * tre-vect-loop.c (vect_analyze_loop_2): Prohibit alignment peeling
>>>>> for outer loops.
>>>>>
>>>>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>>>>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-simd-2.c: New test.