On Thu, 3 Nov 2016, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> I did not understand your last remark:
>
> > That is, here (and avoid the FOR_EACH_LOOP change):
> >
> > @@ -580,12 +586,21 @@ vectorize_loops (void)
> > && dump_enabled_p ())
> > dump_printf_loc (MSG_OPTIMIZED_LOCATIONS, vect_location,
> > "loop vectorized\n");
> > - vect_transform_loop (loop_vinfo);
> > + new_loop = vect_transform_loop (loop_vinfo);
> > num_vectorized_loops++;
> > /* Now that the loop has been vectorized, allow it to be unrolled
> > etc. */
> > loop->force_vectorize = false;
> >
> > + /* Add new loop to a processing queue. To make it easier
> > + to match loop and its epilogue vectorization in dumps
> > + put new loop as the next loop to process. */
> > + if (new_loop)
> > + {
> > + loops.safe_insert (i + 1, new_loop->num);
> > + vect_loops_num = number_of_loops (cfun);
> > + }
> >
> > simply dispatch to a vectorize_epilogue (loop_vinfo, new_loop)
> f> unction which will set up stuff properly (and also perform
> > the if-conversion of the epilogue there).
> >
> > That said, if we can get in non-masked epilogue vectorization
> > separately that would be great.
>
> Could you please clarify your proposal.
When a loop was vectorized set things up to immediately vectorize
its epilogue, avoiding changing the loop iteration and avoiding
the re-use of ->aux.
Richard.
> Thanks.
> Yuri.
>
> 2016-11-02 15:27 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>:
> > On Tue, 1 Nov 2016, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote:
> >
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> I re-send all patches sent by Ilya earlier for review which support
> >> vectorization of loop epilogues and loops with low trip count. We
> >> assume that the only patch - vec-tails-07-combine-tail.patch - was not
> >> approved by Jeff.
> >>
> >> I did re-base of all patches and performed bootstrapping and
> >> regression testing that did not show any new failures. Also all
> >> changes related to new vect_do_peeling algorithm have been changed
> >> accordingly.
> >>
> >> Is it OK for trunk?
> >
> > I would have prefered that the series up to -03-nomask-tails would
> > _only_ contain epilogue loop vectorization changes but unfortunately
> > the patchset is oddly separated.
> >
> > I have a comment on that part nevertheless:
> >
> > @@ -1608,7 +1614,10 @@ vect_enhance_data_refs_alignment (loop_vec_info
> > loop_vinfo)
> > /* Check if we can possibly peel the loop. */
> > if (!vect_can_advance_ivs_p (loop_vinfo)
> > || !slpeel_can_duplicate_loop_p (loop, single_exit (loop))
> > - || loop->inner)
> > + || loop->inner
> > + /* Required peeling was performed in prologue and
> > + is not required for epilogue. */
> > + || LOOP_VINFO_EPILOGUE_P (loop_vinfo))
> > do_peeling = false;
> >
> > if (do_peeling
> > @@ -1888,7 +1897,10 @@ vect_enhance_data_refs_alignment (loop_vec_info
> > loop_vinfo)
> >
> > do_versioning =
> > optimize_loop_nest_for_speed_p (loop)
> > - && (!loop->inner); /* FORNOW */
> > + && (!loop->inner) /* FORNOW */
> > + /* Required versioning was performed for the
> > + original loop and is not required for epilogue. */
> > + && !LOOP_VINFO_EPILOGUE_P (loop_vinfo);
> >
> > if (do_versioning)
> > {
> >
> > please do that check in the single caller of this function.
> >
> > Otherwise I still dislike the new ->aux use and I believe that simply
> > passing down info from the processed parent would be _much_ cleaner.
> > That is, here (and avoid the FOR_EACH_LOOP change):
> >
> > @@ -580,12 +586,21 @@ vectorize_loops (void)
> > && dump_enabled_p ())
> > dump_printf_loc (MSG_OPTIMIZED_LOCATIONS, vect_location,
> > "loop vectorized\n");
> > - vect_transform_loop (loop_vinfo);
> > + new_loop = vect_transform_loop (loop_vinfo);
> > num_vectorized_loops++;
> > /* Now that the loop has been vectorized, allow it to be unrolled
> > etc. */
> > loop->force_vectorize = false;
> >
> > + /* Add new loop to a processing queue. To make it easier
> > + to match loop and its epilogue vectorization in dumps
> > + put new loop as the next loop to process. */
> > + if (new_loop)
> > + {
> > + loops.safe_insert (i + 1, new_loop->num);
> > + vect_loops_num = number_of_loops (cfun);
> > + }
> >
> > simply dispatch to a vectorize_epilogue (loop_vinfo, new_loop)
> > function which will set up stuff properly (and also perform
> > the if-conversion of the epilogue there).
> >
> > That said, if we can get in non-masked epilogue vectorization
> > separately that would be great.
> >
> > I'm still torn about all the rest of the stuff and question its
> > usability (esp. merging the epilogue with the main vector loop).
> > But it has already been approved ... oh well.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Richard.
>
>
--
Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>
SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB
21284 (AG Nuernberg)
