Sorry, I put wrong test - fix it here.
2016-12-21 13:12 GMT+03:00 Yuri Rumyantsev <ysrum...@gmail.com>:
> Hi Richard,
>
> I occasionally found out a bug in my patch related to epilogue
> vectorization without masking : need to put label before
> initialization.
>
> Could you please review and integrate it to trunk. Test-case is also attached.
>
>
> Thanks ahead.
> Yuri.
>
> ChangeLog:
> 2016-12-21 Yuri Rumyantsev <ysrum...@gmail.com>
>
> * tree-vectorizer.c (vectorize_loops): Put label before initialization
> of loop_vectorized_call.
>
> gcc/testsuite/
>
> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-tail-nomask-2.c: New test.
>
> 2016-12-13 16:59 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>:
>> On Mon, 12 Dec 2016, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote:
>>
>>> Richard,
>>>
>>> Could you please review cost model patch before to include it to
>>> epilogue masking patch and add masking cost estimation as you
>>> requested.
>>
>> That's just the middle-end / target changes. I was not 100% happy
>> with them but well, the vectorizer cost modeling needs work
>> (aka another rewrite).
>>
>> From below...
>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Patch and ChangeLog are attached.
>>>
>>> 2016-12-12 15:47 GMT+03:00 Yuri Rumyantsev <ysrum...@gmail.com>:
>>> > Hi Richard,
>>> >
>>> > You asked me about performance of spec2006 on AVX2 machine with new
>>> > feature.
>>> >
>>> > I tried the following on Haswell using original patch designed by Ilya.
>>> > 1. Masking low trip count loops only 6 benchmarks are affected and
>>> > performance is almost the same
>>> > 464.h264ref 63.9000 64.0000 +0.15%
>>> > 416.gamess 42.9000 42.9000 +0%
>>> > 435.gromacs 32.8000 32.7000 -0.30%
>>> > 447.dealII 68.5000 68.3000 -0.29%
>>> > 453.povray 61.9000 62.1000 +0.32%
>>> > 454.calculix 39.8000 39.8000 +0%
>>> > 465.tonto 29.9000 29.9000 +0%
>>> >
>>> > 2. epilogue vectorization without masking (use less vf) (3 benchmarks
>>> > are not affected)
>>> > 400.perlbench 47.2000 46.5000 -1.48%
>>> > 401.bzip2 29.9000 29.9000 +0%
>>> > 403.gcc 41.8000 41.6000 -0.47%
>>> > 456.hmmer 32.0000 32.0000 +0%
>>> > 462.libquantum 81.5000 82.0000 +0.61%
>>> > 464.h264ref 65.0000 65.5000 +0.76%
>>> > 471.omnetpp 27.8000 28.2000 +1.43%
>>> > 473.astar 28.7000 28.6000 -0.34%
>>> > 483.xalancbmk 48.7000 48.6000 -0.20%
>>> > 410.bwaves 95.3000 95.3000 +0%
>>> > 416.gamess 42.9000 42.8000 -0.23%
>>> > 433.milc 38.8000 38.8000 +0%
>>> > 434.zeusmp 51.7000 51.4000 -0.58%
>>> > 435.gromacs 32.8000 32.8000 +0%
>>> > 436.cactusADM 85.0000 83.0000 -2.35%
>>> > 437.leslie3d 55.5000 55.5000 +0%
>>> > 444.namd 31.3000 31.3000 +0%
>>> > 447.dealII 68.7000 68.9000 +0.29%
>>> > 450.soplex 47.3000 47.4000 +0.21%
>>> > 453.povray 62.1000 61.4000 -1.12%
>>> > 454.calculix 39.7000 39.3000 -1.00%
>>> > 459.GemsFDTD 44.9000 45.0000 +0.22%
>>> > 465.tonto 29.8000 29.8000 +0%
>>> > 481.wrf 51.0000 51.2000 +0.39%
>>> > 482.sphinx3 69.8000 71.2000 +2.00%
>>
>> I see 471.omnetpp and 482.sphinx3 are in a similar ballpark and it
>> would be nice to catch the relevant case(s) with a cost model for
>> epilogue vectorization without masking first (to get rid of
>> --param vect-epilogues-nomask).
>>
>> As said elsewhere any non-conservative cost modeling (if the
>> number of scalar iterations is not statically constant) might
>> require versioning of the loop into a non-vectorized,
>> short-trip vectorized and regular vectorized case (the Intel
>> compiler does way more aggressive versioning IIRC).
>>
>> Richard.
>>
>>> > 3. epilogue vectorization using masking (4 benchmarks are not affected):
>>> > 400.perlbench 47.5000 46.8000 -1.47%
>>> > 401.bzip2 30.0000 29.9000 -0.33%
>>> > 403.gcc 42.3000 42.3000 +0%
>>> > 445.gobmk 32.1000 32.8000 +2.18%
>>> > 456.hmmer 32.0000 32.0000 +0%
>>> > 458.sjeng 36.1000 35.5000 -1.66%
>>> > 462.libquantum 81.1000 81.1000 +0%
>>> > 464.h264ref 65.4000 65.0000 -0.61%
>>> > 483.xalancbmk 49.4000 49.3000 -0.20%
>>> > 410.bwaves 95.9000 95.5000 -0.41%
>>> > 416.gamess 42.8000 42.6000 -0.46%
>>> > 433.milc 38.8000 39.1000 +0.77%
>>> > 434.zeusmp 52.1000 51.3000 -1.53%
>>> > 435.gromacs 32.9000 32.9000 +0%
>>> > 436.cactusADM 78.8000 85.3000 +8.24%
>>> > 437.leslie3d 55.4000 55.4000 +0%
>>> > 444.namd 31.3000 31.3000 +0%
>>> > 447.dealII 69.0000 69.2000 +0.28%
>>> > 450.soplex 47.7000 47.6000 -0.20%
>>> > 453.povray 62.2000 61.7000 -0.80%
>>> > 454.calculix 39.7000 38.2000 -3.77%
>>> > 459.GemsFDTD 44.9000 45.0000 +0.22%
>>> > 465.tonto 29.8000 29.9000 +0.33%
>>> > 481.wrf 51.2000 51.6000 +0.78%
>>> > 482.sphinx3 70.3000 65.4000 -6.97%
>>> >
>>> > There is a good speed-up for 436 but there is essential slow0down on 482,
>>> > 454.
>>> >
>>> > So In general we don't have any advantages for AVX2.
>>> >
>>> > Best regards.
>>> > Yuri.
>>> >
>>> > P.S.
>>> > I am not able to provide you with avx512 numbers because i don't have
>>> > an access to it.
>>> > Updated patch will be sent later.
>>> >
>>> > Best regards.
>>> > Yuri.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > 2016-12-05 15:44 GMT+03:00 Yuri Rumyantsev <ysrum...@gmail.com>:
>>> >> Richard,
>>> >>
>>> >> Sorry, U sent you the bad assembly produced for loop with low trip
>>> >> count, here is the correct one:
>>> >>
>>> >> vmovdqa .LC0(%rip), %ymm0
>>> >> vpmaskmovd b(%rip), %ymm0, %ymm1
>>> >> vpmaskmovd c(%rip), %ymm0, %ymm2
>>> >> vpaddd %ymm2, %ymm1, %ymm1
>>> >> vpmaskmovd %ymm1, %ymm0, a(%rip)
>>> >>
>>> >> where .LC0 vector with all elements equal to -1 except for the last.
>>> >>
>>> >> Note also that additional option is required --param
>>> >> vect-short-loops=1 to do such conversion.
>>> >>
>>> >> Best regards.
>>> >> Yuri.
>>> >>
>>> >> 2016-12-02 18:59 GMT+03:00 Yuri Rumyantsev <ysrum...@gmail.com>:
>>> >>> Richard,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Important clarification: the test I sent you with low trip count is
>>> >>> vectorized through masking only under
>>> >>> --param vect-epilogues-combine=1 -fvect-epilogue-cost-model=unlimited
>>> >>> for avx2. The laast option isrequired for avx2 since masked store has
>>> >>> big cost in comparison with masked load.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Below is assemby produced for it:
>>> >>> vpcmpeqd %xmm0, %xmm0, %xmm0
>>> >>> vpmaskmovd b(%rip), %xmm0, %xmm1
>>> >>> vpmaskmovd c(%rip), %xmm0, %xmm2
>>> >>> vpaddd %xmm2, %xmm1, %xmm1
>>> >>> vpmaskmovd %xmm1, %xmm0, a(%rip)
>>> >>> ret
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Thanks.
>>> >>> Yuri.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 2016-12-02 18:49 GMT+03:00 Yuri Rumyantsev <ysrum...@gmail.com>:
>>> >>>> Richard,
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> I have also question about low trip count loops.
>>> >>>> Did you mean that
>>> >>>> int a[128], b[128], c[128];
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> void foo ()
>>> >>>> {
>>> >>>> int i;
>>> >>>> for (i = 0; i<7; i++)
>>> >>>> a[i] = b[i] + c[i];
>>> >>>> }
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> must be vectorizzed with masking without epilogue creation (e.g. for
>>> >>>> avx2)?
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Currently it vectorized with vector size 128. I also noticed that
>>> >>>> original Ilya patch does nothing for such masking.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Thanks.
>>> >>>> Yuri.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> 2016-12-02 17:08 GMT+03:00 Yuri Rumyantsev <ysrum...@gmail.com>:
>>> >>>>> Richard,
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> You wrote:
>>> >>>>> 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.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> I skipped all changes related to cost model assuming that one of the
>>> >>>>> next patch will contain all cost model changes.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Should I include it to this patch?
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Thanks.
>>> >>>>> Yuri.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> 2016-12-01 17:45 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>:
>>> >>>>>> On Thu, 1 Dec 2016, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote:
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> 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
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Spec 2000? Can you check with SPEC 2006 or CPUv6?
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Did you see performance degradation? What about compile-time and
>>> >>>>>> binary size effects?
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> masking, including epilogue masking and combining, only on AVX512
>>> >>>>>>> machine aka knl.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> I see.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Note that as said in the initial review patch the cost model I
>>> >>>>>> saw therein looked flawed. In the end I'd expect a sensible
>>> >>>>>> approach would be to do
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> if (n < scalar-most-profitable-niter)
>>> >>>>>> {
>>> >>>>>> no vectorization
>>> >>>>>> }
>>> >>>>>> else if (n < masking-more-profitable-than-not-masking-plus-epilogue)
>>> >>>>>> {
>>> >>>>>> do masked vectorization
>>> >>>>>> }
>>> >>>>>> else
>>> >>>>>> {
>>> >>>>>> do unmasked vectorization (with epilogue, eventually vectorized)
>>> >>>>>> }
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> where for short trip loops the else path would never be taken
>>> >>>>>> (statically).
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> And yes, that means masking will only be useful for short-trip loops
>>> >>>>>> which in the end means an overall performance benfit is unlikely
>>> >>>>>> unless we have a lot of short-trip loops that are slow because of
>>> >>>>>> the overhead of main unmasked loop plus epilogue.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Richard.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> 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)
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> --
>>> >>>>>> 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)
nomask.patch
Description: Binary data
