Thanks Richard for your comments.
You asked me about possible performance improvements for AVX2 machines
- we did not see any visible speed-up for spec2k with any method of
masking, including epilogue masking and combining, only on AVX512
machine aka knl.
I will answer on your question later.
Best regards.
Yuri
2016-12-01 14:33 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2016, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote:
>
>> Richard!
>>
>> I attached vect dump for hte part of attached test-case which
>> illustrated how vectorization of epilogues works through masking:
>> #define SIZE 1023
>> #define ALIGN 64
>>
>> extern int posix_memalign(void **memptr, __SIZE_TYPE__ alignment,
>> __SIZE_TYPE__ size) __attribute__((weak));
>> extern void free (void *);
>>
>> void __attribute__((noinline))
>> test_citer (int * __restrict__ a,
>> int * __restrict__ b,
>> int * __restrict__ c)
>> {
>> int i;
>>
>> a = (int *)__builtin_assume_aligned (a, ALIGN);
>> b = (int *)__builtin_assume_aligned (b, ALIGN);
>> c = (int *)__builtin_assume_aligned (c, ALIGN);
>>
>> for (i = 0; i < SIZE; i++)
>> c[i] = a[i] + b[i];
>> }
>>
>> It was compiled with -mavx2 --param vect-epilogues-mask=1 options.
>>
>> I did not include in this patch vectorization of low trip-count loops
>> since in the original patch additional parameter was introduced:
>> +DEFPARAM (PARAM_VECT_SHORT_LOOPS,
>> + "vect-short-loops",
>> + "Enable vectorization of low trip count loops using masking.",
>> + 0, 0, 1)
>>
>> I assume that this ability can be included very quickly but it
>> requires cost model enhancements also.
>
> Comments on the patch itself (as I'm having a closer look again,
> I know how it vectorizes the above but I wondered why epilogue
> and short-trip loops are not basically the same code path).
>
> Btw, I don't like that the features are behind a --param paywall.
> That just means a) nobody will use it, b) it will bit-rot quickly,
> c) bugs are well-hidden.
>
> + if (loop_vinfo && LOOP_VINFO_CAN_BE_MASKED (loop_vinfo)
> + && integer_zerop (nested_in_vect_loop
> + ? STMT_VINFO_DR_STEP (stmt_info)
> + : DR_STEP (dr)))
> + {
> + if (dump_enabled_p ())
> + dump_printf_loc (MSG_NOTE, vect_location,
> + "allow invariant load for masked loop.\n");
> + }
>
> this can test memory_access_type == VMAT_INVARIANT. Please put
> all the checks in a common
>
> if (loop_vinfo && LOOP_VINFO_CAN_BE_MASKED (loop_vinfo))
> {
> if (memory_access_type == VMAT_INVARIANT)
> {
> }
> else if (...)
> {
> LOOP_VINFO_CAN_BE_MASKED (loop_vinfo) = false;
> }
> else if (..)
> ...
> }
>
> @@ -6667,6 +6756,15 @@ vectorizable_load (gimple *stmt,
> gimple_stmt_iterator *gsi, gimple **vec_stmt,
> gcc_assert (!nested_in_vect_loop);
> gcc_assert (!STMT_VINFO_GATHER_SCATTER_P (stmt_info));
>
> + if (loop_vinfo && LOOP_VINFO_CAN_BE_MASKED (loop_vinfo))
> + {
> + if (dump_enabled_p ())
> + dump_printf_loc (MSG_MISSED_OPTIMIZATION, vect_location,
> + "cannot be masked: grouped access is not"
> + " supported.");
> + LOOP_VINFO_CAN_BE_MASKED (loop_vinfo) = false;
> + }
> +
>
> isn't this already handled by the above? Or rather the general
> disallowance of SLP?
>
> @@ -5730,6 +5792,24 @@ vectorizable_store (gimple *stmt,
> gimple_stmt_iterator *gsi, gimple **vec_stmt,
> &memory_access_type, &gs_info))
> return false;
>
> + if (loop_vinfo && LOOP_VINFO_CAN_BE_MASKED (loop_vinfo)
> + && memory_access_type != VMAT_CONTIGUOUS)
> + {
> + LOOP_VINFO_CAN_BE_MASKED (loop_vinfo) = false;
> + if (dump_enabled_p ())
> + dump_printf_loc (MSG_MISSED_OPTIMIZATION, vect_location,
> + "cannot be masked: unsupported memory access
> type.\n");
> + }
> +
> + if (loop_vinfo && LOOP_VINFO_CAN_BE_MASKED (loop_vinfo)
> + && !can_mask_load_store (stmt))
> + {
> + LOOP_VINFO_CAN_BE_MASKED (loop_vinfo) = false;
> + if (dump_enabled_p ())
> + dump_printf_loc (MSG_MISSED_OPTIMIZATION, vect_location,
> + "cannot be masked: unsupported masked store.\n");
> + }
> +
>
> likewise please combine the ifs.
>
> @@ -2354,7 +2401,10 @@ vectorizable_mask_load_store (gimple *stmt,
> gimple_stmt_iterator *gsi,
> ptr, vec_mask, vec_rhs);
> vect_finish_stmt_generation (stmt, new_stmt, gsi);
> if (i == 0)
> - STMT_VINFO_VEC_STMT (stmt_info) = *vec_stmt = new_stmt;
> + {
> + STMT_VINFO_VEC_STMT (stmt_info) = *vec_stmt = new_stmt;
> + STMT_VINFO_FIRST_COPY_P (vinfo_for_stmt (new_stmt)) = true;
> + }
> else
> STMT_VINFO_RELATED_STMT (prev_stmt_info) = new_stmt;
> prev_stmt_info = vinfo_for_stmt (new_stmt);
>
> here you only set the flag, elsewhere you copy DR and VECTYPE as well.
>
> @@ -2113,6 +2146,20 @@ vectorizable_mask_load_store (gimple *stmt,
> gimple_stmt_iterator *gsi,
> && !useless_type_conversion_p (vectype, rhs_vectype)))
> return false;
>
> + if (LOOP_VINFO_CAN_BE_MASKED (loop_vinfo))
> + {
> + /* Check that mask conjuction is supported. */
> + optab tab;
> + tab = optab_for_tree_code (BIT_AND_EXPR, vectype, optab_default);
> + if (!tab || optab_handler (tab, TYPE_MODE (vectype)) ==
> CODE_FOR_nothing)
> + {
> + if (dump_enabled_p ())
> + dump_printf_loc (MSG_MISSED_OPTIMIZATION, vect_location,
> + "cannot be masked: unsupported mask
> operation\n");
> + LOOP_VINFO_CAN_BE_MASKED (loop_vinfo) = false;
> + }
> + }
>
> does this really test whether we can bit-and the mask? You are
> using the vector type of the store (which might be V2DF for example),
> also for AVX512 it might be a vector-bool type with integer mode?
> Of course we maybe can simply assume mask conjunction is available
> (I know no ISA where that would be not true).
>
> +/* Return true if STMT can be converted to masked form. */
> +
> +static bool
> +can_mask_load_store (gimple *stmt)
> +{
> + stmt_vec_info stmt_info = vinfo_for_stmt (stmt);
> + tree vectype, mask_vectype;
> + tree lhs, ref;
> +
> + if (!stmt_info)
> + return false;
> + lhs = gimple_assign_lhs (stmt);
> + ref = (TREE_CODE (lhs) == SSA_NAME) ? gimple_assign_rhs1 (stmt) : lhs;
> + if (may_be_nonaddressable_p (ref))
> + return false;
> + vectype = STMT_VINFO_VECTYPE (stmt_info);
>
> You probably modeled this after ifcvt_can_use_mask_load_store but I
> don't think checking may_be_nonaddressable_p is necessary (we couldn't
> even vectorize such refs). stmt_info should never be NULL either.
> With the check removed tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.h should no longer be
> necessary.
>
> +static void
> +vect_mask_load_store_stmt (gimple *stmt, tree vectype, tree mask,
> + data_reference *dr, gimple_stmt_iterator *si)
> +{
> ...
> + addr = force_gimple_operand_gsi (&gsi, build_fold_addr_expr (mem),
> + true, NULL_TREE, true,
> + GSI_SAME_STMT);
> +
> + align = TYPE_ALIGN_UNIT (vectype);
> + if (aligned_access_p (dr))
> + misalign = 0;
> + else if (DR_MISALIGNMENT (dr) == -1)
> + {
> + align = TYPE_ALIGN_UNIT (elem_type);
> + misalign = 0;
> + }
> + else
> + misalign = DR_MISALIGNMENT (dr);
> + set_ptr_info_alignment (get_ptr_info (addr), align, misalign);
> + ptr = build_int_cst (reference_alias_ptr_type (mem),
> + misalign ? misalign & -misalign : align);
>
> you should simply use
>
> align = get_object_alignment (mem) / BITS_PER_UNIT;
>
> here rather than trying to be clever. Eventually you don't need
> the DR then (see question above).
>
> + }
> + gsi_replace (si ? si : &gsi, new_stmt, false);
>
> when you replace the load/store please previously copy VUSE and VDEF
> from the original one (we were nearly clean enough to no longer
> require a virtual operand rewrite after vectorization...) Thus
>
> gimple_set_vuse (new_stmt, gimple_vuse (stmt));
> gimple_set_vdef (new_stmt, gimple_vdef (stmt));
>
> +static void
> +vect_mask_loop (loop_vec_info loop_vinfo)
> +{
> ...
> + /* Scan all loop statements to convert vector load/store including
> masked
> + form. */
> + for (unsigned i = 0; i < loop->num_nodes; i++)
> + {
> + basic_block bb = bbs[i];
> + for (gimple_stmt_iterator si = gsi_start_bb (bb);
> + !gsi_end_p (si); gsi_next (&si))
> + {
> + gimple *stmt = gsi_stmt (si);
> + stmt_vec_info stmt_info = NULL;
> + tree vectype = NULL;
> + data_reference *dr;
> +
> + /* Mask load case. */
> + if (is_gimple_call (stmt)
> + && gimple_call_internal_p (stmt)
> + && gimple_call_internal_fn (stmt) == IFN_MASK_LOAD
> + && !VECTOR_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (gimple_call_arg (stmt, 2))))
> + {
> ...
> + /* Skip invariant loads. */
> + if (integer_zerop (nested_in_vect_loop_p (loop, stmt)
> + ? STMT_VINFO_DR_STEP (stmt_info)
> + : DR_STEP (STMT_VINFO_DATA_REF
> (stmt_info))))
> + continue;
>
> seeing this it would be nice if stmt_info had a flag for whether
> the stmt needs masking (and a flag on wheter this is a scalar or a
> vectorized stmt).
>
> + /* Skip hoisted out statements. */
> + if (!flow_bb_inside_loop_p (loop, gimple_bb (stmt)))
> + continue;
>
> err, you walk stmts in the loop! Isn't this covered by the above
> skipping of 'invariant loads'?
>
> +static gimple *
> +vect_mask_reduction_stmt (gimple *stmt, tree mask, gimple *prev)
> +{
>
> depending on the reduction operand there are variants that
> could get away w/o the VEC_COND_EXPR, like
>
> S1': tem_4 = d_3 & MASK;
> S2': r_1 = r_2 + tem_4;
>
> which works for plus at least. More generally doing
>
> S1': tem_4 = VEC_COND_EXPR<MASK, d_3, neutral operand>
> S2': r_1 = r_2 OP tem_4;
>
> and leaving optimization to & to later opts (& won't work for
> AVX512 mask registers I guess).
>
> Good enough for later enhacement of course.
>
> +static void
> +vect_gen_ivs_for_masking (loop_vec_info loop_vinfo, vec<tree> *ivs)
> +{
> ...
>
> isn't it enough to always create a single IV and derive the
> additional copies by IV + i * { elems, elems, elems ... }?
> IVs are expensive -- I'm sure we can optimize the rest of the
> scheme further as well but this one looks obvious to me.
>
> @@ -3225,12 +3508,32 @@ vect_estimate_min_profitable_iters (loop_vec_info
> loop_vinfo,
> int npeel = LOOP_VINFO_PEELING_FOR_ALIGNMENT (loop_vinfo);
> void *target_cost_data = LOOP_VINFO_TARGET_COST_DATA (loop_vinfo);
>
> + if (LOOP_VINFO_EPILOGUE_P (loop_vinfo))
> + {
> + /* Currently we don't produce scalar epilogue version in case
> + its masked version is provided. It means we don't need to
> + compute profitability one more time here. Just make a
> + masked loop version. */
> + if (LOOP_VINFO_CAN_BE_MASKED (loop_vinfo)
> + && PARAM_VALUE (PARAM_VECT_EPILOGUES_MASK))
> + {
> + dump_printf_loc (MSG_NOTE, vect_location,
> + "cost model: mask loop epilogue.\n");
> + LOOP_VINFO_MASK_LOOP (loop_vinfo) = true;
> + *ret_min_profitable_niters = 0;
> + *ret_min_profitable_estimate = 0;
> + return;
> + }
> + }
> /* Cost model disabled. */
> - if (unlimited_cost_model (LOOP_VINFO_LOOP (loop_vinfo)))
> + else if (unlimited_cost_model (LOOP_VINFO_LOOP (loop_vinfo)))
> {
> dump_printf_loc (MSG_NOTE, vect_location, "cost model
> disabled.\n");
> *ret_min_profitable_niters = 0;
> *ret_min_profitable_estimate = 0;
> + if (PARAM_VALUE (PARAM_VECT_EPILOGUES_MASK)
> + && LOOP_VINFO_CAN_BE_MASKED (loop_vinfo))
> + LOOP_VINFO_MASK_LOOP (loop_vinfo) = true;
> return;
> }
>
> the unlimited_cost_model case should come first? OTOH masking or
> not is probably not sth covered by 'unlimited' - that is about
> vectorizing or not. But the above code means that for
> epilogue vectorization w/o masking we ignore unlimited_cost_model ()?
> That doesn't make sense to me.
>
> Plus if this is short-trip or epilogue vectorization and the
> cost model is _not_ unlimited then we dont' want to enable
> masking always (if it is possible). It might be we statically
> know the epilogue executes for at most two iterations for example.
>
> I don't see _any_ cost model for vectorizing the epilogue with
> masking? Am I missing something? A "trivial" cost model
> should at least consider the additional IV(s), the mask
> compute and the widening and narrowing ops required.
>
> diff --git a/gcc/tree-vect-loop-manip.c b/gcc/tree-vect-loop-manip.c
> index e13d6a2..36be342 100644
> --- a/gcc/tree-vect-loop-manip.c
> +++ b/gcc/tree-vect-loop-manip.c
> @@ -1635,6 +1635,13 @@ vect_do_peeling (loop_vec_info loop_vinfo, tree
> niters, tree nitersm1,
> bool epilog_peeling = (LOOP_VINFO_PEELING_FOR_NITER (loop_vinfo)
> || LOOP_VINFO_PEELING_FOR_GAPS (loop_vinfo));
>
> + if (LOOP_VINFO_EPILOGUE_P (loop_vinfo))
> + {
> + prolog_peeling = false;
> + if (LOOP_VINFO_MASK_LOOP (loop_vinfo))
> + epilog_peeling = false;
> + }
> +
> if (!prolog_peeling && !epilog_peeling)
> return NULL;
>
> I think the prolog_peeling was fixed during the epilogue vectorization
> review and should no longer be necessary. Please add
> a && ! LOOP_VINFO_MASK_LOOP () to the epilog_peeling init instead
> (it should also work for short-trip loop vectorization).
>
> @@ -2022,11 +2291,18 @@ start_over:
> || (max_niter != -1
> && (unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT) max_niter < vectorization_factor))
> {
> - if (dump_enabled_p ())
> - dump_printf_loc (MSG_MISSED_OPTIMIZATION, vect_location,
> - "not vectorized: iteration count smaller than "
> - "vectorization factor.\n");
> - return false;
> + /* Allow low trip count for loop epilogue we want to mask. */
> + if (LOOP_VINFO_EPILOGUE_P (loop_vinfo)
> + && PARAM_VALUE (PARAM_VECT_EPILOGUES_MASK))
> + LOOP_VINFO_MASK_LOOP (loop_vinfo) = true;
> + else
> + {
> + if (dump_enabled_p ())
>
> so why do we test only LOOP_VINFO_EPILOGUE_P here? All the code
> I saw sofar would also work for the main loop (but the cost
> model is missing).
>
> I am missing testcases. There's only a single one but we should
> have cases covering all kinds of mask IV widths and widen/shorten
> masks.
>
> Do you have any numbers on SPEC 2k6 with epilogue vect and/or masking
> enabled for an AVX2 machine?
>
> Oh, and I really dislike the --param paywall.
>
> Thanks,
> Richard.
>
>> Best regards.
>> Yuri.
>>
>>
>> 2016-11-28 17:39 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>:
>> > 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)
>>
>
> --
> Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>
> SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB
> 21284 (AG Nuernberg)
