On Tue, 16 Jun 2020, zhoukaipeng (A) wrote: > Hi, > > I try to eliminate the common stmts for *vec_offset also. But I am not sure > it is a good way. > > New patch attached. Bootstraped and testsuites are being tested.
Looks good to me and certainly worth if it makes a difference for IV calculation (that was the main motivation of the machinery). Richard. > Kaipeng Zhou > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Richard Biener [mailto:rguent...@suse.de] > > Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 2:21 PM > > To: zhoukaipeng (A) <zhoukaipe...@huawei.com> > > Cc: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandif...@arm.com>; gcc- > > patc...@gcc.gnu.org; am...@gcc.gnu.org; rgue...@gcc.gnu.org > > Subject: RE: [PATCH PR95199] vect: Remove extra variable created for > > memory reference > > > > On Sun, 14 Jun 2020, zhoukaipeng (A) wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I modified the issue you mentioned. Bootstrap and tested on aarch64 > > Linux platform again. No new regression witnessed. > > > > > > For "*vec_offset", it is indeed a point optimizable. However, it is > > > not able to eliminate it by the same way as "*dataref_bump". The > > > cse_and_gimplify_to_preheader will return the cached operand if > > > operand_compare::operand_equal_p for the cached one and the new one > > > returns true. But it did not work well for "*vec_offset". > > > > You have to see what is actually in *vec_offset, if there's partly > > gimplified but > > not CSEd stmts in there then that's the issue. > > > > Richard. > > > > > Do you have any suggestions for the problem? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Kaipeng Zhou > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Richard Sandiford [mailto:richard.sandif...@arm.com] > > > > Sent: Friday, June 12, 2020 3:48 PM > > > > To: zhoukaipeng (A) <zhoukaipe...@huawei.com> > > > > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; rguent...@suse.de; am...@gcc.gnu.org; > > > > rgue...@gcc.gnu.org > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH PR95199] vect: Remove extra variable created for > > > > memory reference > > > > > > > > "zhoukaipeng (A)" <zhoukaipe...@huawei.com> writes: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > This is a fix for pr95199. > > > > > In vectorization, vinfo->ivexpr_map is supposed to catch those "IV > > > > > base > > > > and/or step expressions". Just call cse_and_gimplify_to_preheader > > > > to handle gathering/scattering to avoid the extra variable. > > > > > > > > > > Bootstrap and tested on aarch64/x86_64 Linux platform. No new > > > > regression witnessed. > > > > > > > > > > Is it ok? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Kaipeng Zhou > > > > > > > > > > From 12cf9b362576735e4c584c48cd6db3d2b0f2e14b Mon Sep 17 > > 00:00:00 > > > > 2001 > > > > > From: Kaipeng Zhou <zhoukaipe...@huawei.com> > > > > > Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2020 00:54:15 +0800 > > > > > Subject: [PATCH] vect: Remove extra variable created for memory > > > > > reference in loop vectorization. > > > > > > > > > > Vectorization create two copies of the same IV and IVOPTs does not > > > > > perform CSE. But vinfo->ivexpr_map is supposed to catch those "IV > > > > > base and/or step expressions". Just call > > > > > cse_and_gimplify_to_preheader to handle gathering/scattering to > > > > > avoid > > > > the extra variable. > > > > > > > > > > 2020-06-12 Bin Cheng <bin.ch...@linux.alibaba.com> > > > > > Kaipeng Zhou <zhoukaipe...@huawei.com> > > > > > > > > > > PR tree-optimization/95199 > > > > > * tree-vect-stmts.c: Use CSE map to catch the IV step and > > > > > eliminate > > > > > extra variable. > > > > > > > > > > 2020-06-12 Bin Cheng <bin.ch...@linux.alibaba.com> > > > > > Kaipeng Zhou <zhoukaipe...@huawei.com> > > > > > > > > > > PR tree-optimization/95199 > > > > > * gcc.dg/vect/pr95199.c: New test. > > > > > --- > > > > > gcc/ChangeLog | 7 +++++++ > > > > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog | 6 ++++++ > > > > > gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr95199.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++ > > > > > gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c | 1 + > > > > > 4 files changed, 31 insertions(+) create mode 100644 > > > > > gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr95199.c > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/gcc/ChangeLog b/gcc/ChangeLog index > > > > > c92582df7fe..753d70fc94b 100644 > > > > > --- a/gcc/ChangeLog > > > > > +++ b/gcc/ChangeLog > > > > > @@ -1,3 +1,10 @@ > > > > > +2020-06-12 Bin Cheng <bin.ch...@linux.alibaba.com> > > > > > + Kaipeng Zhou <zhoukaipe...@huawei.com> > > > > > + > > > > > + PR tree-optimization/95199 > > > > > + * tree-vect-stmts.c: Use CSE map to catch the IV step and > > > > > eliminate > > > > > + extra variable. > > > > > + > > > > > 2020-06-08 Tobias Burnus <tob...@codesourcery.com> > > > > > > > > > > PR lto/94848 > > > > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog b/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog > > > > > index > > > > > 60d9ecca3ed..a27dd3fa072 100644 > > > > > --- a/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog > > > > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog > > > > > @@ -1,3 +1,9 @@ > > > > > +2020-06-12 Bin Cheng <bin.ch...@linux.alibaba.com> > > > > > + Kaipeng Zhou <zhoukaipe...@huawei.com> > > > > > + > > > > > + PR tree-optimization/95199 > > > > > + * gcc.dg/vect/pr95199.c: New test. > > > > > + > > > > > 2020-06-08 Harald Anlauf <anl...@gmx.de> > > > > > > > > > > PR fortran/95195 > > > > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr95199.c > > > > > b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr95199.c > > > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > > index 00000000000..ec201feaec8 > > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr95199.c > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ > > > > > +/* { dg-do compile { target aarch64-*-* } } */ > > > > > +/* { dg-options "-O3 -march=armv8.2-a+fp+sve" } */ > > > > > + > > > > > +void > > > > > +foo (double *a, double *b, double m, int inc_x, int inc_y) { > > > > > + int ix = 0, iy = 0; > > > > > + for (int i = 0; i < 1000; ++i) > > > > > + { > > > > > + a[ix] += m * b[iy]; > > > > > + ix += inc_x; > > > > > + iy += inc_y; > > > > > + } > > > > > + return ; > > > > > +} > > > > > + > > > > > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "add" 12 } } */ > > > > > > > > For asm tests, it's probably better to put this in aarch64/sve instead. > > > > The scan-assembler should be a bit more precise though, since just "add" > > > > could catch filenames like /homd/ladd/gcc. E.g. maybe it would be > > > > clearer to make the regexp match the register operands too. (In > > > > that case it's better to quote the regexp with {…} rather than "…", > > > > to reduce the number of > > > > backslashes.) > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c b/gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c index > > > > > b24b0fe4304..26a2b143b01 100644 > > > > > --- a/gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c > > > > > +++ b/gcc/tree-vect-stmts.c > > > > > @@ -2969,6 +2969,7 @@ vect_get_strided_load_store_ops > > > > (stmt_vec_info stmt_info, > > > > > tree bump = size_binop (MULT_EXPR, > > > > > fold_convert (sizetype, unshare_expr (DR_STEP > > > > (dr))), > > > > > size_int (TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS (vectype))); > > > > > + bump = cse_and_gimplify_to_preheader (loop_vinfo, bump); > > > > > *dataref_bump = force_gimple_operand (bump, &stmts, true, > > > > NULL_TREE); > > > > > if (stmts) > > > > > gsi_insert_seq_on_edge_immediate (loop_preheader_edge (loop), > > > > > stmts); > > > > > > > > Agree it's good to do this, but using cse_and_gimplify_to_preheader > > > > makes the force_gimple_operand and > > gsi_insert_seq_on_edge_immediate > > > > redundant. > > > > > > > > I guess we might as well do the same thing for “*vec_offset” too. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Richard > > > > > > > -- > > Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> > > SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Maxfeldstrasse 5, 90409 > > Nuernberg, Germany; GF: Felix Imendörffer; HRB 36809 (AG Nuernberg) > -- Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Maxfeldstrasse 5, 90409 Nuernberg, Germany; GF: Felix Imendörffer; HRB 36809 (AG Nuernberg)
