On Fri, 11 Nov 2016, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote:
> Richard,
>
> I prepare updated 3 patch with passing additional argument to
> vect_analyze_loop as you proposed (untested).
>
> You wrote:
> tw, I wonder if you can produce a single patch containing just
> epilogue vectorization, that is combine patches 1-3 but rip out
> changes only needed by later patches?
>
> Did you mean that I exclude all support for vectorization epilogues,
> i.e. exclude from 2-nd patch all non-related changes
> like
>
> diff --git a/gcc/tree-vect-loop.c b/gcc/tree-vect-loop.c
> index 11863af..32011c1 100644
> --- a/gcc/tree-vect-loop.c
> +++ b/gcc/tree-vect-loop.c
> @@ -1120,6 +1120,12 @@ new_loop_vec_info (struct loop *loop)
> LOOP_VINFO_PEELING_FOR_GAPS (res) = false;
> LOOP_VINFO_PEELING_FOR_NITER (res) = false;
> LOOP_VINFO_OPERANDS_SWAPPED (res) = false;
> + LOOP_VINFO_CAN_BE_MASKED (res) = false;
> + LOOP_VINFO_REQUIRED_MASKS (res) = 0;
> + LOOP_VINFO_COMBINE_EPILOGUE (res) = false;
> + LOOP_VINFO_MASK_EPILOGUE (res) = false;
> + LOOP_VINFO_NEED_MASKING (res) = false;
> + LOOP_VINFO_ORIG_LOOP_INFO (res) = NULL;
Yes.
> Did you mean also that new combined patch must be working patch, i.e.
> can be integrated without other patches?
Yes.
> Could you please look at updated patch?
Will do.
Thanks,
Richard.
> Thanks.
> Yuri.
>
> 2016-11-10 15:36 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>:
> > On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 8 Nov 2016, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote:
> >>
> >> > Richard,
> >> >
> >> > Here is updated 3 patch.
> >> >
> >> > I checked that all new tests related to epilogue vectorization passed
> >> > with it.
> >> >
> >> > Your comments will be appreciated.
> >>
> >> A lot better now. Instead of the ->aux dance I now prefer to
> >> pass the original loops loop_vinfo to vect_analyze_loop as
> >> optional argument (if non-NULL we analyze the epilogue of that
> >> loop_vinfo). OTOH I remember we mainly use it to get at the
> >> original vectorization factor? So we can pass down an (optional)
> >> forced vectorization factor as well?
> >
> > Btw, I wonder if you can produce a single patch containing just
> > epilogue vectorization, that is combine patches 1-3 but rip out
> > changes only needed by later patches?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Richard.
> >
> >> Richard.
> >>
> >> > 2016-11-08 15:38 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>:
> >> > > 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)
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>
> > SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB
> > 21284 (AG Nuernberg)
>
--
Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>
SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB
21284 (AG Nuernberg)
