On March 17, 2018 11:21:18 AM GMT+01:00, Richard Sandiford 
<richard.sandif...@linaro.org> wrote:
>The testcase ICEd for both SVE and AVX512 because we were trying
>to vectorise a chain of COND_EXPRs as a reduction and getting
>confused by reduc_index == -1.
>
>We normally handle reduction chains by vectorising all statements
>except the last one normally, but that wouldn't work here for the
>reasons explained in the comment.
>
>Tested on aarch64-linux-gnu and x86_64-linux-gnu.  OK to install?

OK. 

Richard. 

>Richard
>
>
>2018-03-17  Richard Sandiford  <richard.sandif...@linaro.org>
>
>gcc/
>       PR tree-optimization/84913
>       * tree-vect-loop.c (vectorizable_reduction): Don't try to
>       vectorize chains of COND_EXPRs.
>
>gcc/testsuite/
>       PR tree-optimization/84913
>       * gfortran.dg/vect/pr84913.f90: New test.
>
>Index: gcc/tree-vect-loop.c
>===================================================================
>--- gcc/tree-vect-loop.c       2018-03-01 08:20:43.850526185 +0000
>+++ gcc/tree-vect-loop.c       2018-03-17 10:19:19.289947549 +0000
>@@ -6788,6 +6788,30 @@ vectorizable_reduction (gimple *stmt, gi
>/* If we have a condition reduction, see if we can simplify it further.
> */
>   if (v_reduc_type == COND_REDUCTION)
>     {
>+      /* TODO: We can't yet handle reduction chains, since we need to
>treat
>+       each COND_EXPR in the chain specially, not just the last one.
>+       E.g. for:
>+
>+          x_1 = PHI <x_3, ...>
>+          x_2 = a_2 ? ... : x_1;
>+          x_3 = a_3 ? ... : x_2;
>+
>+       we're interested in the last element in x_3 for which a_2 || a_3
>+       is true, whereas the current reduction chain handling would
>+       vectorize x_2 as a normal VEC_COND_EXPR and only treat x_3
>+       as a reduction operation.  */
>+      if (reduc_index == -1)
>+      {
>+        if (dump_enabled_p ())
>+          dump_printf_loc (MSG_MISSED_OPTIMIZATION, vect_location,
>+                           "conditional reduction chains not supported\n");
>+        return false;
>+      }
>+
>+      /* vect_is_simple_reduction ensured that operand 2 is the
>+       loop-carried operand.  */
>+      gcc_assert (reduc_index == 2);
>+
>       /* Loop peeling modifies initial value of reduction PHI, which
>        makes the reduction stmt to be transformed different to the
>        original stmt analyzed.  We need to record reduction code for
>Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/pr84913.f90
>===================================================================
>--- /dev/null  2018-03-17 08:19:33.716019995 +0000
>+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/pr84913.f90 2018-03-17
>10:19:19.286947657 +0000
>@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
>+! { dg-do compile }
>+
>+function foo(a, b, c, n)
>+  integer :: a(n), b(n), c(n), n, i, foo
>+  foo = 0
>+  do i = 1, n
>+    if (a(i) .eq. b(i)) then
>+      foo = 1
>+    else if (a(i) .eq. c(i)) then
>+      foo = 2
>+    end if
>+  end do
>+end function foo

Reply via email to