Hi All, Here is the second patch which supports epilogue vectorization using masking without cost model. Currently it is possible only with passing parameter "--param vect-epilogues-mask=1".
Bootstrapping and regression testing did not show any new regression.
Any comments will be appreciated.
ChangeLog:
2016-11-24 Yuri Rumyantsev <ysrum...@gmail.com>
* params.def (PARAM_VECT_EPILOGUES_MASK): New.
* tree-vect-data-refs.c (vect_get_new_ssa_name): Support vect_mask_var.
* tree-vect-loop.c: Include insn-config.h, recog.h and alias.h.
(new_loop_vec_info): Add zeroing can_be_masked, mask_loop and
required_mask fields.
(vect_check_required_masks_widening): New.
(vect_check_required_masks_narrowing): New.
(vect_get_masking_iv_elems): New.
(vect_get_masking_iv_type): New.
(vect_get_extreme_masks): New.
(vect_check_required_masks): New.
(vect_analyze_loop_operations): Call vect_check_required_masks if all
statements can be masked.
(vect_analyze_loop_2): Inititalize to zero min_scalar_loop_bound.
Add check that epilogue can be masked with the same vf with issue
fail notes. Allow epilogue vectorization through masking of low trip
loops. Set to true can_be_masked field before loop operation analysis.
Do not set-up min_scalar_loop_bound for epilogue vectorization through
masking. Do not peeling for epilogue masking. Reset can_be_masked
field before repeat analysis.
(vect_estimate_min_profitable_iters): Do not compute profitability
for epilogue masking. Set up mask_loop filed to true if parameter
PARAM_VECT_EPILOGUES_MASK is non-zero.
(vectorizable_reduction): Add check that statement can be masked.
(vectorizable_induction): Do not support masking for induction.
(vect_gen_ivs_for_masking): New.
(vect_get_mask_index_for_elems): New.
(vect_get_mask_index_for_type): New.
(vect_create_narrowed_masks): New.
(vect_create_widened_masks): New.
(vect_gen_loop_masks): New.
(vect_mask_reduction_stmt): New.
(vect_mask_mask_load_store_stmt): New.
(vect_mask_load_store_stmt): New.
(vect_mask_loop): New.
(vect_transform_loop): Invoke vect_mask_loop if required.
Use div_ceil to recompute upper bounds for masked loops. Issue
statistics for epilogue vectorization through masking. Do not reduce
vf for masking epilogue.
* tree-vect-stmts.c: Include tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.h.
(can_mask_load_store): New.
(vectorizable_mask_load_store): Check that mask conjuction is
supported. Set-up first_copy_p field of stmt_vinfo.
(vectorizable_simd_clone_call): Check that simd clone can not be
masked.
(vectorizable_store): Check that store can be masked. Mark the first
copy of generated vector stores and provide it with vectype and the
original data reference.
(vectorizable_load): Check that load can be masked.
(vect_stmt_should_be_masked_for_epilogue): New.
(vect_add_required_mask_for_stmt): New.
(vect_analyze_stmt): Add check on unsupported statements for masking
with printing message.
* tree-vectorizer.h (struct _loop_vec_info): Add new fields
can_be_maske, required_masks, masl_loop.
(LOOP_VINFO_CAN_BE_MASKED): New.
(LOOP_VINFO_REQUIRED_MASKS): New.
(LOOP_VINFO_MASK_LOOP): New.
(struct _stmt_vec_info): Add first_copy_p field.
(STMT_VINFO_FIRST_COPY_P): New.
gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.dg/vect/vect-tail-mask-1.c: New test.
2016-11-18 18:54 GMT+03:00 Christophe Lyon <christophe.l...@linaro.org>:
> On 18 November 2016 at 16:46, Yuri Rumyantsev <ysrum...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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?
>
> It's not the scan-dumps that fail, but the execution.
> The test calls abort() for some reason.
>
> It will take me a while to rebuild the test manually in the right
> debug environment to provide you with more traces.
>
>
>
>>
>> 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)
>>>>>
>>>>>
epilog-mask.patch
Description: Binary data
