From: Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
To: "Bin.Cheng" <amker.cheng@gmail.com>
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Missed optimization in PRE?
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 11:02:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFiYyc23Tam-Xif2eo-g8wK9=uATnPrtaVxXsn_yVrvgxi-Nvw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHFci2_P7L4=EGisnROrpq=8iuSTHh6KPFK6ZfgfHAdSei=bow@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Bin.Cheng <amker.cheng@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Bin.Cheng <amker.cheng@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Richard Guenther
>> <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Bin.Cheng <amker.cheng@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Richard Guenther
>>>> <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Bin.Cheng <amker.cheng@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Richard Guenther
>>>>>> <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Bin.Cheng <amker.cheng@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>> Following is the tree dump of 094t.pre for a test program.
>>>>>>>> Question is loads of D.5375_12/D.5375_14 are redundant on path <bb2,
>>>>>>>> bb7, bb5, bb6>,
>>>>>>>> but why not lowered into basic block 3, where it is used.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BTW, seems no tree pass handles this case currently.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> tree-ssa-sink.c should do this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It does not work for me, I will double check and update soon.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, "should" as in, it's the place to do it. And certainly the pass can sink
>>>>> loads, so this must be a missed optimization.
>>>>>
>>>> Curiously, it is said explicitly that "We don't want to sink loads from memory."
>>>> in tree-ssa-sink.c function statement_sink_location, and the condition is
>>>>
>>>> if (stmt_ends_bb_p (stmt)
>>>> || gimple_has_side_effects (stmt)
>>>> || gimple_has_volatile_ops (stmt)
>>>> || (gimple_vuse (stmt) && !gimple_vdef (stmt))
>>>> <-----------------check load
>>>> || (cfun->has_local_explicit_reg_vars
>>>> && TYPE_MODE (TREE_TYPE (gimple_assign_lhs (stmt))) == BLKmode))
>>>> return false;
>>>>
>>>> I haven't found any clue about this decision in ChangeLogs.
>>>
>>> Ah, that's probably because usually you want to hoist loads and sink stores,
>>> separating them (like a scheduler would do). We'd want to restrict sinking
>>> of loads to sink into not post-dominated regions (thus where they end up
>>> being executed less times).
>
> Hi Richard,
> I am testing a patch to sink load of memory to proper basic block.
> Everything goes fine except auto-vectorization, sinking of load sometime
> corrupts the canonical form of data references. I haven't touched auto-vec
> before and cannot tell whether it's good or bad to do sink before auto-vec.
> For example, the slp-cond-1.c
>
> <bb 3>:
> # i_39 = PHI <i_32(11), 0(2)>
> D.5150_5 = i_39 * 2;
> D.5151_10 = D.5150_5 + 1;
> D.5153_17 = a[D.5150_5];
> D.5154_19 = b[D.5150_5];
> if (D.5153_17 >= D.5154_19)
> goto <bb 9>;
> else
> goto <bb 4>;
>
> <bb 9>:
> d0_6 = d[D.5150_5]; <-----this is sunk from bb3
> goto <bb 5>;
>
> <bb 4>:
> e0_8 = e[D.5150_5]; <-----this is sunk from bb3
>
> <bb 5>:
> # d0_2 = PHI <d0_6(9), e0_8(4)>
> k[D.5150_5] = d0_2;
> D.5159_26 = a[D.5151_10];
> D.5160_29 = b[D.5151_10];
> if (D.5159_26 >= D.5160_29)
> goto <bb 10>;
> else
> goto <bb 6>;
>
>
> <bb 10>:
> d1_11 = d[D.5151_10]; <-----this is sunk from bb3
> goto <bb 7>;
>
> <bb 6>:
> e1_14 = e[D.5151_10]; <-----this is sunk from bb3
>
> <bb 7>:
> .......
>
> I will look into auto-vect but not sure how to handle this case.
>
> Any comments? Thanks very much.
Simple - the vectorizer expects empty latch blocks. So simply
never sink stuff into latch-blocks - I think the current code already
tries to avoid that for regular computations.
Richard.
> --
> Best Regards.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-04-09 11:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-03-29 10:02 Bin.Cheng
2012-03-29 10:07 ` Richard Guenther
2012-03-29 10:10 ` Bin.Cheng
2012-03-29 10:14 ` Richard Guenther
2012-03-29 10:22 ` Bin.Cheng
2012-03-29 15:25 ` Bin.Cheng
2012-03-30 8:16 ` Richard Guenther
2012-03-30 9:43 ` Bin.Cheng
2012-04-09 6:00 ` Bin.Cheng
2012-04-09 11:02 ` Richard Guenther [this message]
2012-04-11 3:28 ` Bin.Cheng
2012-04-11 8:05 ` Bin.Cheng
2012-04-11 9:09 ` Richard Guenther
2012-04-11 9:25 ` Bin.Cheng
2012-04-11 10:02 ` Richard Guenther
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='CAFiYyc23Tam-Xif2eo-g8wK9=uATnPrtaVxXsn_yVrvgxi-Nvw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
--cc=amker.cheng@gmail.com \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
/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).