On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 8:05 AM Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 12:19:28PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > Yes, the patch works OK. I'll regression test it and push it later today.
>
> I think it caused
> +FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr84512.c scan-tree-dump optimized "return 285;"
> which admittedly already is xfailed on various targets.
> We now newly vectorize those loops and there is no FRE or similar pass
> after vectorization to clean it up, in particular optimize the
> a[8] and a[9] loads given the MEM <vector(2) int> [(int *)&a + 32B]
> store:
> MEM <vector(2) int> [(int *)&a + 32B] = { 64, 81 };
> _13 = a[8];
> res_6 = _13 + 140;
> _18 = a[9];
> res_15 = res_6 + _18;
> a ={v} {CLOBBER};
> return res_15;
Yes, I have seen pr84512.c, but the failure is benign. It is caused by
the fact that we now vectorize the loops of the test.
> Shall we xfail it, or is there a plan to enable FRE after vectorization,
> or similar pass that would be able to do similar memory optimizations?
> Note, the RTL passes are able to optimize it in the end in this testcase.
The testcase failure could be solved by -fno-tree-vectorize, but I
think that the value should be propagated through vectors, and tree
optimizers should optimize the vectorized function in the same way as
scalar function.
Uros.
