It is very strange that this test failed on arm, since it requires
target avx2 to check vectorizer dumps:
/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "LOOP VECTORIZED" 2 "vect" {
target avx2_runtime } } } */
/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "LOOP EPILOGUE VECTORIZED
\\(VS=16\\)" 2 "vect" { target avx2_runtime } } } */
Could you please clarify what is the reason of the failure?
Thanks.
2016-11-18 16:20 GMT+03:00 Christophe Lyon <christophe.l...@linaro.org>:
> On 15 November 2016 at 15:41, Yuri Rumyantsev <ysrum...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Here is patch for non-masked epilogue vectoriziation.
>>
>> Bootstrap and regression testing did not show any new failures.
>>
>> Is it OK for trunk?
>>
>> Thanks.
>> Changelog:
>>
>> 2016-11-15 Yuri Rumyantsev <ysrum...@gmail.com>
>>
>> * params.def (PARAM_VECT_EPILOGUES_NOMASK): New.
>> * tree-if-conv.c (tree_if_conversion): Make public.
>> * * tree-if-conv.h: New file.
>> * tree-vect-data-refs.c (vect_analyze_data_ref_dependences) Avoid
>> dynamic alias checks for epilogues.
>> * tree-vect-loop-manip.c (vect_do_peeling): Return created epilog.
>> * tree-vect-loop.c: include tree-if-conv.h.
>> (new_loop_vec_info): Add zeroing orig_loop_info field.
>> (vect_analyze_loop_2): Don't try to enhance alignment for epilogues.
>> (vect_analyze_loop): Add argument ORIG_LOOP_INFO which is not NULL
>> if epilogue is vectorized, set up orig_loop_info field of loop_vinfo
>> using passed argument.
>> (vect_transform_loop): Check if created epilogue should be returned
>> for further vectorization with less vf. If-convert epilogue if
>> required. Print vectorization success for epilogue.
>> * tree-vectorizer.c (vectorize_loops): Add epilogue vectorization
>> if it is required, pass loop_vinfo produced during vectorization of
>> loop body to vect_analyze_loop.
>> * tree-vectorizer.h (struct _loop_vec_info): Add new field
>> orig_loop_info.
>> (LOOP_VINFO_ORIG_LOOP_INFO): New.
>> (LOOP_VINFO_EPILOGUE_P): New.
>> (LOOP_VINFO_ORIG_VECT_FACTOR): New.
>> (vect_do_peeling): Change prototype to return epilogue.
>> (vect_analyze_loop): Add argument of loop_vec_info type.
>> (vect_transform_loop): Return created loop.
>>
>> gcc/testsuite/
>>
>> * lib/target-supports.exp (check_avx2_hw_available): New.
>> (check_effective_target_avx2_runtime): New.
>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-tail-nomask-1.c: New test.
>>
>
> Hi,
>
> This new test fails on arm-none-eabi (using default cpu/fpu/mode):
> gcc.dg/vect/vect-tail-nomask-1.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects execution test
> gcc.dg/vect/vect-tail-nomask-1.c execution test
>
> It does pass on the same target if configured --with-cpu=cortex-a9.
>
> Christophe
>
>
>
>>
>> 2016-11-14 20:04 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>:
>>> On November 14, 2016 4:39:40 PM GMT+01:00, Yuri Rumyantsev
>>> <ysrum...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>Richard,
>>>>
>>>>I checked one of the tests designed for epilogue vectorization using
>>>>patches 1 - 3 and found out that build compiler performs vectorization
>>>>of epilogues with --param vect-epilogues-nomask=1 passed:
>>>>
>>>>$ gcc -Ofast -mavx2 t1.c -S --param vect-epilogues-nomask=1 -o
>>>>t1.new-nomask.s -fdump-tree-vect-details
>>>>$ grep VECTORIZED -c t1.c.156t.vect
>>>>4
>>>> Without param only 2 loops are vectorized.
>>>>
>>>>Should I simply add a part of tests related to this feature or I must
>>>>delete all not necessary changes also?
>>>
>>> Please remove all not necessary changes.
>>>
>>> Richard.
>>>
>>>>Thanks.
>>>>Yuri.
>>>>
>>>>2016-11-14 16:40 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>:
>>>>> On Mon, 14 Nov 2016, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Richard,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In my previous patch I forgot to remove couple lines related to aux
>>>>field.
>>>>>> Here is the correct updated patch.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, I noticed. This patch would be ok for trunk (together with
>>>>> necessary parts from 1 and 2) if all not required parts are removed
>>>>> (and you'd add the testcases covering non-masked tail vect).
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus, can you please produce a single complete patch containing only
>>>>> non-masked epilogue vectoriziation?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Richard.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>> Yuri.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2016-11-14 15:51 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>:
>>>>>> > 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)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>
>>>>> SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Graham
>>>>Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg)
>>>
>>>
