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)