On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Yuri Rumyantsev <ysrum...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Richard,
>
> Here is the second part of patch which really preforms mask stores and
> all statements related to it to new basic block guarded by test on
> zero mask. Hew test is also added.
>
> Is it OK for trunk?
+ /* Pick up all masked stores in loop if any. */
+ for (gsi = gsi_start_bb (bb); !gsi_end_p (gsi); gsi_next (&gsi))
+ {
+ stmt = gsi_stmt (gsi);
you fail to iterate over all BBs of the loop here. Please follow
other uses in the
vectorizer.
+ while (!worklist.is_empty ())
+ {
+ gimple *last, *last_store;
+ edge e, efalse;
+ tree mask;
+ basic_block store_bb, join_bb;
+ gimple_stmt_iterator gsi_to;
+ /* tree arg3; */
remove
+ tree vdef, new_vdef;
+ gphi *phi;
+ bool first_dump;
+ tree vectype;
+ tree zero;
+
+ last = worklist.pop ();
+ mask = gimple_call_arg (last, 2);
+ /* Create new bb. */
bb should be initialized from gimple_bb (last), not loop->header
+ e = split_block (bb, last);
+ gsi_from = gsi_for_stmt (stmt1);
+ gsi_to = gsi_start_bb (store_bb);
+ gsi_move_before (&gsi_from, &gsi_to);
+ update_stmt (stmt1);
I think the update_stmt is redundant and you should be able to
keep two gsis throughout the loop, from and to, no?
+ /* Put other masked stores with the same mask to STORE_BB. */
+ if (worklist.is_empty ()
+ || gimple_call_arg (worklist.last (), 2) != mask
+ || !is_valid_sink (worklist.last (), last_store))
as I understand the code the last check is redundant with the invariant
you track if you verify the stmt you breaked from the inner loop is
actually equal to worklist.last () and you add a flag to track whether
you did visit a load (vuse) in the sinking loop you didn't end up sinking.
+ /* Issue different messages depending on FIRST_DUMP. */
+ if (first_dump)
+ {
+ dump_printf_loc (MSG_NOTE, vect_location,
+ "Move MASK_STORE to new bb#%d\n",
+ store_bb->index);
+ first_dump = false;
+ }
+ else
+ dump_printf_loc (MSG_NOTE, vect_location,
+ "Move MASK_STORE to created bb\n");
just add a separate dump when you create the BB, "Created new bb#%d for ..."
to avoid this.
Note that I can't comment on the x86 backend part so that will need to
be reviewed by somebody
else.
Thanks,
Richard.
> Thanks.
> Yuri.
>
> 2016-01-18 Yuri Rumyantsev <ysrum...@gmail.com>
>
> PR middle-end/68542
> * config/i386/i386.c (ix86_expand_branch): Implement integral vector
> comparison with boolean result.
> * config/i386/sse.md (define_expand "cbranch<mode>4): Add define-expand
> for vector comparion with eq/ne only.
> * tree-vect-loop.c (is_valid_sink): New function.
> (optimize_mask_stores): Likewise.
> * tree-vect-stmts.c (vectorizable_mask_load_store): Initialize
> has_mask_store field of vect_info.
> * tree-vectorizer.c (vectorize_loops): Invoke optimaze_mask_stores for
> vectorized loops having masked stores.
> * tree-vectorizer.h (loop_vec_info): Add new has_mask_store field and
> correspondent macros.
> (optimize_mask_stores): Add prototype.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-mask-store-move-1.c: New test.
>
> 2016-01-18 17:07 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com>:
>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Yuri Rumyantsev <ysrum...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Thanks Richard.
>>>
>>> I changed the check on type as you proposed.
>>>
>>> What about the second back-end part of patch (it has been sent 08.12.15).
>>
>> Can't see it in my inbox - can you reply to the mail with a ping?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Richard.
>>
>>> Thanks.
>>> Yuri.
>>>
>>> 2016-01-18 15:44 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com>:
>>>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Yuri Rumyantsev <ysrum...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Richard,
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you have anu chance to look at updated patch?
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/gcc/tree-vrp.c b/gcc/tree-vrp.c
>>>> index acbb70b..208a752 100644
>>>> --- a/gcc/tree-vrp.c
>>>> +++ b/gcc/tree-vrp.c
>>>> @@ -5771,6 +5771,10 @@ register_edge_assert_for (tree name, edge e,
>>>> gimple_stmt_iterator si,
>>>> &comp_code, &val))
>>>> return;
>>>>
>>>> + /* VRP doesn't track ranges for vector types. */
>>>> + if (TREE_CODE (TREE_TYPE (name)) == VECTOR_TYPE)
>>>> + return;
>>>> +
>>>>
>>>> please instead fix extract_code_and_val_from_cond_with_ops with
>>>>
>>>> Index: gcc/tree-vrp.c
>>>> ===================================================================
>>>> --- gcc/tree-vrp.c (revision 232506)
>>>> +++ gcc/tree-vrp.c (working copy)
>>>> @@ -5067,8 +5067,9 @@ extract_code_and_val_from_cond_with_ops
>>>> if (invert)
>>>> comp_code = invert_tree_comparison (comp_code, 0);
>>>>
>>>> - /* VRP does not handle float types. */
>>>> - if (SCALAR_FLOAT_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (val)))
>>>> + /* VRP only handles integral and pointer types. */
>>>> + if (! INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (val))
>>>> + && ! POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (val)))
>>>> return false;
>>>>
>>>> /* Do not register always-false predicates.
>>>>
>>>> Ok with that change.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Richard.
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>> Yuri.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2015-12-18 13:20 GMT+03:00 Yuri Rumyantsev <ysrum...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>> Hi Richard,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is updated patch for middle-end part of the whole patch which
>>>>>> fixes all your remarks I hope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regression testing and bootstrapping did not show any new failures.
>>>>>> Is it OK for trunk?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yuri.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ChangeLog:
>>>>>> 2015-12-18 Yuri Rumyantsev <ysrum...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PR middle-end/68542
>>>>>> * fold-const.c (fold_binary_op_with_conditional_arg): Bail out for case
>>>>>> of mixind vector and scalar types.
>>>>>> (fold_relational_const): Add handling of vector
>>>>>> comparison with boolean result.
>>>>>> * tree-cfg.c (verify_gimple_comparison): Add argument CODE, allow
>>>>>> comparison of vector operands with boolean result for EQ/NE only.
>>>>>> (verify_gimple_assign_binary): Adjust call for verify_gimple_comparison.
>>>>>> (verify_gimple_cond): Likewise.
>>>>>> * tree-ssa-forwprop.c (combine_cond_expr_cond): Do not perform
