On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Ira Rosen <ira.ro...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 14 June 2011 13:02, Richard Guenther <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Ira Rosen <ira.ro...@linaro.org> wrote: >>> On 10 June 2011 12:14, Richard Guenther <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> In the end I think we should not generate the pattern stmt during >>>> pattern matching but only mark the relevant statements with a >>>> pattern kind. Say, for each pattern we have a "main" statement >>>> that has related stmts belonging to the pattern that define uses >>>> of the "main" statement - mark those to refer to that "main" statement. >>>> For that "main" statement simply record an enum value, like, >>>> widening_mult. Then only at vectorized statement >>>> generation time actually generate the vectorized form of the >>>> pattern statement. >>> >>> I ended up with the following: during pattern detection a new scalar >>> pattern statement is created but not inserted into the code, it is >>> only recorded as a related statement of the last statement in the >>> detected pattern. Every time the last statement is being >>> analyzed/transformed, we switch to the pattern statement instead. It >>> is much more difficult just to mark the last stmt with an enum value, >>> since we have to retrieve the relevant operands every time. >>> >>> I am not sure if we need to free the pattern stmt at the end.
No, they are going to be garbage collected. >>> Bootstrapped and now testing on powerpc64-suse-linux (tested >>> vectorizer testsuite on powerpc64-suse-linux and x86_64-suse-linux. >>> >>> What do you think? >> >> /* Mark the stmts that are involved in the pattern. */ >> - gsi_insert_before (&si, pattern_stmt, GSI_SAME_STMT); >> set_vinfo_for_stmt (pattern_stmt, >> new_stmt_vec_info (pattern_stmt, loop_vinfo, NULL)); >> + gimple_set_bb (pattern_stmt, gimple_bb (stmt)); >> >> do you really need this? > > Yes, there are a lot of uses of gimple_bb (stmt). Otherwise, we'd have > to check there that bb exists (or that this is not a pattern stmt) and > use the bb of the original statement if not. I see. It's not really uglier than the part where you have to special-case them when walking use-operands, so ... Still a lot better than when inserting them for real. >> Otherwise it looks reasonable. Btw, >> we can probably remove the simple DCE done in >> slpeel_tree_peel_loop_to_edge (remove_dead_stmts_from_loop) >> with this patch. > > I'll try that. Thanks, Richard. > Thanks, > Ira > >> >> Thanks, >> Richard. >> >>> Thanks, >>> Ira >>> >>> ChangeLog: >>> >>> * tree-vect-loop.c (vect_determine_vectorization_factor): Don't >>> remove irrelevant pattern statements. For irrelevant statements >>> check if it is the last statement of a detected pattern, use >>> corresponding pattern statement instead. >>> (destroy_loop_vec_info): No need to remove pattern statements, >>> only free stmt_vec_info. >>> (vect_transform_loop): For irrelevant statements check if it is >>> the last statement of a detected pattern, use corresponding >>> pattern statement instead. >>> * tree-vect-patterns.c (vect_pattern_recog_1): Don't insert >>> pattern statements. Set basic block for the new statement. >>> (vect_pattern_recog): Update documentation. >>> * tree-vect-stmts.c (vect_mark_stmts_to_be_vectorized): Scan >>> operands of pattern statements. >>> (vectorizable_call): Fix printing. In case of a pattern statement >>> use the lhs of the original statement when creating a dummy >>> statement to replace the original call. >>> (vect_analyze_stmt): For irrelevant statements check if it is >>> the last statement of a detected pattern, use corresponding >>> pattern statement instead. >>> * tree-vect-slp.c (vect_schedule_slp_instance): For pattern >>> statements use gsi of the original statement. >>> >> >
