From: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com>
To: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
Cc: Richard Biener via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus <stefansf@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] vect: Fix infinite loop while determining peeling amount
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 10:45:03 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <mptft9dgulc.fsf@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFiYyc0SnCXEe6nooOd-RNXLHC8CL6zMKGEhnFpSUu47MVi6LA@mail.gmail.com> (Richard Biener's message of "Mon, 27 Jul 2020 11:12:29 +0200")
Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 11:09 AM Richard Sandiford
> <richard.sandiford@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>> Richard Biener via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
>> > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 5:18 PM Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus via
>> > Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> This is a follow up to commit 5c9669a0e6c respectively discussion
>> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-June/549132.html
>> >>
>> >> In case that an alignment constraint is less than the size of a
>> >> corresponding scalar type, ensure that we advance at least by one
>> >> iteration. For example, on s390x we have for a long double an alignment
>> >> constraint of 8 bytes whereas the size is 16 bytes. Therefore,
>> >> TARGET_ALIGN / DR_SIZE equals zero resulting in an infinite loop which
>> >> can be reproduced by the following MWE:
>> >
>> > But we guard this case with vector_alignment_reachable_p, so we shouldn't
>> > have ended up here and the patch looks bogus.
>>
>> The above sounds like it ought to count as reachable alignment though.
>> If a type requires a lower alignment than its size, then that's even
>> more easily reachable than a type that requires the same alignment as
>> the size. I guess at one extreme, a target alignment of 1 is always
>> reachable.
>
> Well, if the element alignment is 8 but its size is 16 then when presumably
> the desired vector alignment is a multiple of 16 we can never reach it.
> Isn't this the case here?
If the desired vector alignment (TARGET_ALIGN) is a multiple of 16 then
TARGET_ALIGN / DR_SIZE will be nonzero and the problem the patch is
fixing wouldn't occur. I agree that we might never be able to reach
that alignment if the pointer starts out misaligned by 8 bytes.
But I think that's why it makes sense for the target to only ask
for 8-byte alignment for vectors too, if it can cope with it. 8-byte
alignment should always be achievable if the scalars are ABI-aligned.
And if the target does ask for only 8-byte alignment, TARGET_ALIGN /
DR_SIZE would be zero and the loop would never progress, which is the
problem that the patch is fixing.
It would even make sense for the target to ask for 1-byte alignment,
if the target doesn't care about alignment at all.
Thanks,
Richard
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-27 9:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-07-22 15:14 Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
2020-07-24 15:54 ` Richard Sandiford
2020-07-27 7:06 ` Richard Biener
2020-07-27 8:41 ` Richard Sandiford
2020-07-27 9:12 ` Richard Biener
2020-07-27 9:45 ` Richard Sandiford [this message]
2020-07-27 10:29 ` Richard Biener
2020-07-27 14:20 ` Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
2020-07-28 6:55 ` Richard Biener
2020-07-28 15:36 ` Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
2020-07-29 7:11 ` Richard Biener
2020-07-29 7:49 ` Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
2020-07-29 8:06 ` Richard Biener
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=mptft9dgulc.fsf@arm.com \
--to=richard.sandiford@arm.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
--cc=stefansf@linux.ibm.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).