On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Robin Dapp <rd...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> Included the requested changes in the patches (to follow). I removed
> the alignment count check now altogether.
>
>> I'm not sure why you test for unlimited_cost_model here as I said
>> elsewhere I'm not sure
>> what not cost modeling means for static decisions. The purpose of
>> unlimited_cost_model
>> is to always vectorize when possible and omit the runtime
>> profitability check. So for peeling
>> I'd just always use the cost model. Thus please drop this check.
>
> Without that, I get one additional FAIL gcc.dg/vect/slp-25.c for x86.
> It is caused by choosing no peeling (inside costs 0) over peeling for
> known alignment with unlimited cost model (inside costs 0 as well).
> Costs 0 for no peeling are caused by count == 0 or rather ncopies = vf /
> nunits == 4 / 8 == 0 in record_stmt_costs (). Shouldn't always hold
> ncopies > 0? Even 0.5 would have worked here to make no peeling more
> expensive than 0.
That's odd. I can't get
Index: gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c (revision 247882)
+++ gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c (working copy)
@@ -95,6 +96,7 @@ record_stmt_cost (stmt_vector_for_cost *
enum vect_cost_for_stmt kind, stmt_vec_info stmt_info,
int misalign, enum vect_cost_model_location where)
{
+ gcc_assert (count > 0);
if (body_cost_vec)
{
tree vectype = stmt_info ? stmt_vectype (stmt_info) : NULL_TREE;
to ICE with the testcase (unpatched trunk)
Where's that record_stmt_cost call done? You can't simply use vf/nunits
for SLP.
Richard.
> Test suite on s390x is clean.
>
> Regards
> Robin
>
