On Thu, 24 Nov 2016, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote:
> 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.
Going over the patch the main question is one how it works -- it looks
like the decision whether to vectorize & mask the epilogue is made
when vectorizing the loop that generates the epilogue rather than
in the epilogue vectorization path?
That is, I'd have expected to see this handling low-trip count loops
by masking? And thus masking the epilogue simply by it being
low-trip count?
Richard.
> 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)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
>
--
Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>
SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB
21284 (AG Nuernberg)
