Richard, Sorry for confusion but my updated patch does not work properly, so I need to fix it.
Yuri. 2016-11-11 14:15 GMT+03:00 Yuri Rumyantsev <ysrum...@gmail.com>: > 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; > > Did you mean also that new combined patch must be working patch, i.e. > can be integrated without other patches? > > Could you please look at updated patch? > > 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)