public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Robin Dapp <rdapp@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
	"Bin.Cheng" <amker.cheng@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] S/390: Alignment peeling prolog generation
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 11:17:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <c90d1a26-f335-c548-6aa7-b57924b03ca5@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFiYyc1LFtniQv9FNXJW7g8uByb8H_4vnrx52oS0kzBaKQedEw@mail.gmail.com>

Included the requested changes in the patches (to follow).  I removed
the alignment count check now altogether.

> I'm not sure why you test for unlimited_cost_model here as I said
> elsewhere I'm not sure
> what not cost modeling means for static decisions.  The purpose of
> unlimited_cost_model
> is to always vectorize when possible and omit the runtime
> profitability check.  So for peeling
> I'd just always use the cost model.  Thus please drop this check.

Without that, I get one additional FAIL gcc.dg/vect/slp-25.c for x86.
It is caused by choosing no peeling (inside costs 0) over peeling for
known alignment with unlimited cost model (inside costs 0 as well).
Costs 0 for no peeling are caused by count == 0 or rather ncopies = vf /
nunits == 4 / 8 == 0 in record_stmt_costs ().  Shouldn't always hold
ncopies > 0? Even 0.5 would have worked here to make no peeling more
expensive than 0.

Test suite on s390x is clean.

Regards
 Robin

  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-05-11 11:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-04-11 14:38 Robin Dapp
2017-04-11 14:57 ` Bin.Cheng
2017-04-11 15:03   ` Robin Dapp
2017-04-11 15:07     ` Bin.Cheng
2017-04-11 16:25   ` Richard Biener
2017-04-12  7:51     ` Robin Dapp
2017-04-12  7:58       ` Richard Biener
2017-05-04  9:04         ` Robin Dapp
2017-05-05 11:04           ` Richard Biener
2017-05-08 16:12             ` Robin Dapp
2017-05-09 10:38               ` Richard Biener
2017-05-11 11:17                 ` [PATCH 1/5] Vect peeling cost model Robin Dapp
2017-05-11 11:17                 ` Robin Dapp [this message]
2017-05-11 12:15                   ` [RFC] S/390: Alignment peeling prolog generation Richard Biener
2017-05-11 12:16                     ` Richard Biener
2017-05-11 12:48                       ` Richard Biener
2017-05-11 11:18                 ` [PATCH 2/5] Vect peeling cost model Robin Dapp
2017-05-11 11:19                 ` [PATCH 3/5] " Robin Dapp
2017-05-11 11:20                 ` [PATCH 4/5] " Robin Dapp
2017-05-11 15:30                   ` [PATCH 4/5 v2] " Robin Dapp
2017-05-12  9:36                     ` Richard Biener
2017-05-23 15:58                       ` [PATCH 2/5 v3] " Robin Dapp
2017-05-23 19:25                         ` Richard Sandiford
2017-05-24  7:37                           ` Robin Dapp
2017-05-24  7:53                             ` Richard Sandiford
2017-05-23 15:58                       ` [PATCH 1/5 " Robin Dapp
2017-05-23 15:58                       ` [PATCH 0/5 " Robin Dapp
2017-05-24  7:51                         ` Richard Biener
2017-05-24 11:57                           ` Robin Dapp
2017-05-24 13:56                             ` Richard Biener
2017-06-03 17:12                         ` Andreas Schwab
2017-06-06  7:13                           ` Robin Dapp
2017-06-06 17:26                             ` Andreas Schwab
2017-06-07 10:50                               ` Robin Dapp
2017-06-07 11:43                                 ` Andreas Schwab
2017-05-23 15:59                       ` [PATCH 4/5 " Robin Dapp
2017-05-31 13:56                         ` Christophe Lyon
2017-05-31 14:37                           ` Robin Dapp
2017-05-31 14:49                             ` Christophe Lyon
2017-05-23 15:59                       ` [PATCH 5/5 " Robin Dapp
2017-05-23 16:02                       ` [PATCH 3/5 " Robin Dapp
2017-05-11 11:59                 ` [PATCH 5/5] " Robin Dapp
2017-05-08 16:13             ` [PATCH 3/4] " Robin Dapp
2017-05-09 10:41               ` Richard Biener
2017-05-08 16:27             ` [PATCH 4/4] " Robin Dapp
2017-05-09 10:55               ` Richard Biener
2017-05-04  9:04         ` [PATCH 1/3] " Robin Dapp
2017-05-05 10:32           ` Richard Biener
2017-05-04  9:07         ` [PATCH 2/3] " Robin Dapp
2017-05-05 10:37           ` Richard Biener
2017-05-04  9:14         ` [PATCH 3/3] " Robin Dapp

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=c90d1a26-f335-c548-6aa7-b57924b03ca5@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --to=rdapp@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=amker.cheng@gmail.com \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).