Re: [PATCH] Do not instrument void variables with MPX (PR tree-opt/79987).

2017-08-10 10:40 GMT+03:00 Martin Liška : > Hello. > > In order to prevent the ICE, CHKP should not isntrument variables of void > type. Hi, There was another thread for this PR where I proposed a way to handle such vars via size relocations. But there was no feedback in that

Re: [PATCH] Fix UB in tree-chkp.c

2017-06-19 20:43 GMT+03:00 Jakub Jelinek : > Hi! > > bootstrap-ubsan shows a couple of: > ../../gcc/tree-chkp.c:694:37: runtime error: shift exponent 63 is too large > for 32-bit type 'int' > errors. > > 1 << (TYPE_PRECISION (ptr_type_node) - 1) > should have been obviously >

Re: Fix for PR79987

The standard does not specify that size anyways. What do you > think? I think declaring void var is similar to declaring static array with no size and we should handle these cases similarly. Thanks, Ilya > > Alexander > > > > 2017-05-11 20:37 GMT+02:00 Ilya Enkovich <

Re: [PATCH] Fix mpx testcases (Re: [CHKP] Fix for PR79990)

2017-06-08 22:45 GMT+03:00 Jakub Jelinek : > On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 03:29:40PM +0200, Alexander Ivchenko wrote: >> 2017-05-09 Alexander Ivchenko >> >> * gcc.target/i386/mpx/hard-reg-2-lbv.c: New test. >> *

Re: Fix for PR79987

anks Ilya > > Alexander > > 2017-05-10 22:51 GMT+02:00 Ilya Enkovich <enkovich@gmail.com>: >> 2017-05-10 22:08 GMT+03:00 Alexander Ivchenko <aivch...@gmail.com>: >>> Hi, >>> >>> something like that: >>> >>> diff --git a/gcc/tree

Re: [CHKP] Fix for PR79990

2017-05-09 16:29 GMT+03:00 Alexander Ivchenko : > Hi, > > Here is the latest version of the patch with all comments addressed: > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > 2017-05-09 Alexander Ivchenko > > * tree-chkp.c (chkp_get_hard_register_var_fake_base_address): >

Re: [CHKP] Fix for PR79988

Hi, Please put comment to code explaining why you don't use gimple_call_builtin_p to avoid similar issues in the future. Also please follow Rainer's comments. OK with these fixes. Thanks, Ilya 2017-04-20 15:27 GMT+03:00 Rainer Orth : > Hi Alexander, > > just a

Re: [CHKP] Fix for PR79990

8 __attribute__ ((vector_size (8))); > + > +struct S2 > +{ > + int* f[2]; > +}; > + > +int foo (int i, int *kp1) > +{ > + register struct S2 b asm ("xmm0"); > + int k2 = 5; > + > + b.f[0] = kp1; > + b.f[1] = > + > + b.f[0] =

Re: [CHKP] Fix for PR79990

obj; > + > + /* If not - return regular ADDR_EXPR. */ >return TREE_CODE (obj) == TARGET_MEM_REF > ? tree_mem_ref_addr (ptr_type_node, obj) > : build_fold_addr_expr (obj); > @@ -3170,6 +3195,11 @@ chkp_get_bounds_for_decl_addr (tree decl) >gcc_assert (VA

Re: Fix for PR79987

2017-04-04 18:34 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law : > On 04/04/2017 09:07 AM, Alexander Ivchenko wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> When creating static bounds for foo below we end up with: >> >> *((unsigned long *) &__chkp_bounds_of_foo + 8) = >> ~(__builtin_ia32_sizeof (foo) + ((long unsigned int) + >>

Re: [CHKP] Fix for PR79990

2017-03-23 17:18 GMT+03:00 Alexander Ivchenko : > Hi, > > The patch below attempts to fix the PR. I checked that it did not > break any of mpx.exp tests, but I did not run the full testing yet. > Would like to know whether this approach is generally correct or not. > > The

Re: [PATCH] MPX: fix PR middle-end/79753

2017-03-15 20:09 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com>: > On 03/15/2017 04:15 AM, Martin Liška wrote: >> >> On 03/14/2017 11:27 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >>> >>> 2017-03-10 16:15 GMT+03:00 Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz>: >>>> >>>&

Re: [PATCH] MPX: fix PR middle-end/79753

2017-03-15 13:15 GMT+03:00 Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz>: > On 03/14/2017 11:27 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >> >> 2017-03-10 16:15 GMT+03:00 Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz>: >>> >>> Hello. >>> >>> Currently, __builtin_ia32_bndret is used fo

Re: [PATCH 1/5] Fix *_CST ICEs connected to MPX.

2017-03-13 16:33 GMT+03:00 Martin Liška : > On 03/13/2017 02:07 PM, Richard Biener wrote: >> No, that can't happen. I said that for example for >> >> struct S { ... } s; >> foo (s); >> >> pass_by_reference may be true but on gimple you see a struct s as >> actual argument. I'm

Re: [PATCH] MPX: fix PR middle-end/79753

2017-03-10 16:15 GMT+03:00 Martin Liška : > Hello. > > Currently, __builtin_ia32_bndret is used for all functions that have non-void > return type. I think the right fix is to return bounds just for a bounded > type. > > Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives

Re: PR78631 fix

Hi, ChangeLog? Otherwise OK. Ilya 2016-12-23 14:02 GMT+03:00 Alexander Ivchenko : > Hi Ilya, > > Would that patch be OK to submit? (it is HJ's one with added testcase) > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/mpx/memcpy-1.c >

Re: Pointer Bounds Checker and trailing arrays (PR68270)

;& TREE_CODE(TREE_TYPE(field)) == ARRAY_TYPE > + && !DECL_CHAIN (field)) > && (!DECL_FIELD_OFFSET (field) > || TREE_CODE (DECL_FIELD_OFFSET (field)) == INTEGER_CST) > && (!DECL_FIELD_BIT_OFFSET (field) OK. > > 2016-12-21 21:00 GMT+03:00 Ily

Re: Pointer Bounds Checker and trailing arrays (PR68270)

2016-12-20 17:44 GMT+03:00 Alexander Ivchenko <aivch...@gmail.com>: > 2016-11-26 0:28 GMT+03:00 Ilya Enkovich <enkovich@gmail.com>: >> 2016-11-25 15:47 GMT+03:00 Alexander Ivchenko <aivch...@gmail.com>: >>> Hi, >>> >>> The patch

Re: Calling 'abort' on bounds violations in libmpx

X_RT_STOP) > -exit (255); > +__mpxrt_stop (); >return; > > default: > @@ -269,7 +269,7 @@ handler (int sig __attribute__ ((unused)), >__mpxrt_write (VERB_ERROR, ", ip = 0x"); >__mpxrt_write_uint (VERB_ERROR, ip, 16); >__mpxrt

Re: Calling 'abort' on bounds violations in libmpx

2016-11-29 17:43 GMT+03:00 Alexander Ivchenko : > Hi, > > Attached patch is addressing PR67520. Would that approach work for the > problem? Should I also change the version of the library? Hi! Overall patch is OK. But you need to change version because you change default

Re: Pointer Bounds Checker and trailing arrays (PR68270)

2016-11-25 15:47 GMT+03:00 Alexander Ivchenko : > Hi, > > The patch below addresses PR68270. could you please take a look? > > 2016-11-25 Alexander Ivchenko > >* c-family/c.opt (flag_chkp_flexible_struct_trailing_arrays): >Add new option.

Re: [MPX] Fix for PR77267

2016-09-05 12:56 GMT+03:00 Alexander Ivchenko : > Ok, thanks. The full updated patch is below. I also removed the > '--whole-archive' thing from -static-libmpxwrappers case. This version is OK for trunk with proper ChangeLog and after proper testing. > Would that be possible

Re: [MPX] Fix for PR77267

2016-08-31 16:37 GMT+03:00 Alexander Ivchenko <aivch...@gmail.com>: > 2016-08-31 12:18 GMT+03:00 Ilya Enkovich <enkovich@gmail.com>: >> 2016-08-30 21:53 GMT+03:00 Alexander Ivchenko <aivch...@gmail.com>: >>> Would something like that count? >>&

Re: [MPX] Fix for PR77267

h-state/--pop-state options) > +if test x"$ld_is_gold" = xno; then > + if test $in_tree_ld = yes ; then > +if test "$gcc_cv_gld_major_version" -eq 2 -a > "$gcc_cv_gld_minor_version" -ge 25 -o "$gcc_cv_gld_major_version" -gt > 2; then > +

Re: [MPX] Fix for PR77267

2016-08-25 12:27 GMT+03:00 Alexander Ivchenko : > The attached patched fixes the usage of MPX in presence of > "-Wl,-as-needed" option. 'make checked' on MPX-enabled machine. > > "--push-state" and "--pop-state" are not supported by gold at the > moment. But that's OK because

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 07/10] Support loop epilogue combining

2016-07-26 18:38 GMT+03:00 Ilya Enkovich <enkovich@gmail.com>: > 2016-07-26 18:26 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com>: >> On 07/26/2016 03:57 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Ilya, what's the fundamental reason why we n

Re: [PATCH] Remove special streaming of builtins

2016-07-26 22:52 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener : > On July 26, 2016 7:26:46 PM GMT+02:00, "H.J. Lu" wrote: >>On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 4:35 AM, Richard Biener >>wrote: >>> >>> So I needed to fix that builtins appearing in BLOCK_VARs and the

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 07/10] Support loop epilogue combining

2016-07-26 18:26 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com>: > On 07/26/2016 03:57 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >>> >>> >>> Ilya, what's the fundamental reason why we need to run >>> if-conversion again? Yes, I know you want to if-convert the >>>

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 07/10] Support loop epilogue combining

2016-07-26 14:51 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com>: > On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Ilya Enkovich <enkovich@gmail.com> > wrote: >> 2016-07-26 0:08 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com>: >>> On 07/25/2016 12:32 PM, Richard Biener wr

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 07/10] Support loop epilogue combining

2016-07-26 0:08 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law : > On 07/25/2016 12:32 PM, Richard Biener wrote: >> >> On July 25, 2016 8:01:17 PM GMT+02:00, Jeff Law wrote: >>> >>> On 07/22/2016 05:36 AM, Richard Biener wrote: The thing that needs work I think is re-running of

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 07/10] Support loop epilogue combining

In my list I see #1, #4, and #5 are not approved. Thanks, Ilya 2016-07-20 19:24 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com>: > On 07/20/2016 08:37 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > >> Here is an updated version. >> >> Thanks, >> Ilya >> -- >> gcc/ >>

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 07/10] Support loop epilogue combining

On 14 Jul 16:04, Jeff Law wrote: > On 06/28/2016 06:24 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > > > > >Here is an updated patch version. > > > >Thanks, > >Ilya > >-- > >gcc/ > > > >+/* Function vect_gen_loop_masks. > >+ > >+ Create

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 10/10] Tests

2016-07-14 20:32 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com>: > On 07/05/2016 09:44 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> This patch adds several tests to check tails vectorization functionality. >> >> Thanks, >> Ilya >> -- >> gcc/tests

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 07/10] Support loop epilogue combining

Ping 2016-06-28 15:24 GMT+03:00 Ilya Enkovich <enkovich@gmail.com>: > On 16 Jun 10:54, Jeff Law wrote: >> On 05/19/2016 01:44 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >> >Hi, >> > >> >This patch introduces support for loop epilogue combining. This includes >&

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 05/10] Check if loop can be masked

Ping 2016-06-23 12:54 GMT+03:00 Ilya Enkovich <enkovich@gmail.com>: > On 22 Jun 11:42, Jeff Law wrote: >> On 06/22/2016 10:09 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >> >> >>Given the common structure & duplication I can't help but wonder if a >> >>single &g

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 03/10] Support epilogues vectorization with no masking

Ping 2016-06-24 10:40 GMT+03:00 Ilya Enkovich <enkovich@gmail.com>: > On 17 Jun 10:46, Jeff Law wrote: >> On 06/17/2016 08:33 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >> >> >> >>Hmm, there seems to be a level of indirection I'm missing here. We're >> >>smug

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 08/10] Support loop epilogue masking and low trip count loop vectorization

Ping 2016-06-24 14:46 GMT+03:00 Ilya Enkovich <enkovich@gmail.com>: > On 16 Jun 18:52, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >> 2016-06-15 15:00 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com>: >> > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 9:46 PM, Ilya Enkovich <enkovich

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 04/10] Add masking cost

Ping 2016-06-22 17:13 GMT+03:00 Ilya Enkovich <enkovich@gmail.com>: > On 16 Jun 00:16, Jeff Law wrote: >> On 05/19/2016 01:40 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >> >Hi, >> > >> >This patch extends vectorizer cost model to include masking cost by >> >

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 01/10] New compiler options

Ping 2016-06-16 16:42 GMT+03:00 Ilya Enkovich <enkovich@gmail.com>: > On 20 May 14:40, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >> > Can you make all these --params then? I think to be useful to users we'd >> > want >> > them to be loop pragmas rather than options. >>

[PATCH, PR ipa/71633] Fix inlining into thunks

? Thanks, Ilya -- gcc/ 2016-07-11 Ilya Enkovich <ilya.enkov...@intel.com> PR ipa/71633 * ipa-inline-transform.c (inline_call): Support instrumented thunks. gcc/testsuite/ 2016-07-11 Ilya Enkovich <ilya.enkov...@intel.com> PR ipa/71633 * g+

[PATCH, vec-tails 10/10] Tests

Hi, This patch adds several tests to check tails vectorization functionality. Thanks, Ilya -- gcc/testsuite/ 2016-07-05 Ilya Enkovich <ilya.enkov...@intel.com> * lib/target-supports.exp (check_avx2_hw_available): New. (check_effective_target_avx2_runtime

Re: [PING] Re: [PATCH] Fix MPX tests on systems with MPX disabled

2016-07-04 22:58 GMT+03:00 Andi Kleen : > Andi Kleen writes: > > PING! > >> From: Andi Kleen >> >> I have a Skylake system with MPX in the CPU, but MPX is disabled >> in the kernel configuration. >> >> This makes all the MPX tests

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 07/10] Support loop epilogue combining

On 28 Jun 15:24, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > On 16 Jun 10:54, Jeff Law wrote: > > > > I don't see anything particularly worrisome here either -- I have a slight > > concern about correctness issues with only masking loads/stores and > > reductions. But I will defer

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 05/10] Check if loop can be masked

On 23 Jun 12:54, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > > Here is an updated version with less typos and more comments. > > Thanks, > Ilya > -- Here is an updated version with trapping statements check added to vect_analyze_stmt. Thanks, Ilya -- gcc/ 2016-06-28 Ilya Enkovich <il

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 07/10] Support loop epilogue combining

On 16 Jun 10:54, Jeff Law wrote: > On 05/19/2016 01:44 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > >Hi, > > > >This patch introduces support for loop epilogue combining. This includes > >support in cost estimation and all required changes required to mask > >vectorized loop. &g

[PATCH, PR tree-optimization/71655] Fix LE and LT masks comparison cases

Hi, Currently we use operands swap when compare masks using LT and LE codes. Operands swap misses swap for their definition types and this patch fixes it. Testing is in progress. OK for trunk if pass? Thanks, Ilya -- gcc/ 2016-06-28 Ilya Enkovich <ilya.enkov...@intel.com>

Re: [PATCH, PR middle-end/71488] Fix vectorization of comparison of booleans

Looks like it caused PR71655 and therefore is not so safe :/ Ilya 2016-06-22 17:00 GMT+03:00 Ilya Enkovich <enkovich@gmail.com>: > 2016-06-21 23:57 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com>: >> On 06/16/2016 05:06 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >&g

[PATCH, obvious] Update comments for several vectorizator functions

Hi, This patch adds args description for some vectorizer functions. I'm going to commit it to trunk. Thanks, Ilya -- gcc/ 2016-06-27 Ilya Enkovich <ilya.enkov...@intel.com> * tree-vect-loop-manip.c (vect_update_ivs_after_vectorizer): Update c

[PATCH, CHKP, PR ipa/71624] Fix local.can_change_signature computation for instrumentation thunk callees

Enkovich <ilya.enkov...@intel.com> * ipa-inline-analysis.c (compute_inline_parameters): Set local.can_change_signature to false for intrumentation thunk callees. gcc/testsuite/ 2016-06-27 Ilya Enkovich <ilya.enkov...@intel.com> * g++.dg/pr71624.C: New

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 08/10] Support loop epilogue masking and low trip count loop vectorization

On 16 Jun 18:52, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > 2016-06-15 15:00 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com>: > > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 9:46 PM, Ilya Enkovich <enkovich@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> This patch enab

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 03/10] Support epilogues vectorization with no masking

On 17 Jun 10:46, Jeff Law wrote: > On 06/17/2016 08:33 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > >> > >>Hmm, there seems to be a level of indirection I'm missing here. We're > >>smuggling LOOP_VINFO_ORIG_LOOP_INFO around in loop->aux. Ewww. I thought > >>th

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 05/10] Check if loop can be masked

On 22 Jun 11:42, Jeff Law wrote: > On 06/22/2016 10:09 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > > >>Given the common structure & duplication I can't help but wonder if a single > >>function should be used for widening/narrowing. Ultimately can't you swap > >>mask_e

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 05/10] Check if loop can be masked

2016-06-16 10:08 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com>: > On 05/19/2016 01:42 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> This patch introduces analysis to determine if loop can be masked >> (compute LOOP_VINFO_CAN_BE_MASKED and LOOP_VINFO_REQUIRED_MASKS

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 05/10] Check if loop can be masked

2016-06-16 9:26 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law : > On 06/15/2016 05:22 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >> >> >> You look at TREE_TYPE of LOOP_VINFO_NITERS (loop_vinfo) - I don't think >> this is meaningful (if then only by accident). I think you should look at >> the >> control IV itself, possibly

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 04/10] Add masking cost

On 16 Jun 00:16, Jeff Law wrote: > On 05/19/2016 01:40 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > >Hi, > > > >This patch extends vectorizer cost model to include masking cost by > >adding new cost model locations and new target hook to compute > >masking cost. > > > >

Re: [PATCH, PR middle-end/71488] Fix vectorization of comparison of booleans

2016-06-21 23:57 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com>: > On 06/16/2016 05:06 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> This patch fixes incorrect comparison vectorization for booleans. >> The problem is that regular comparison which works for scalars >&

Re: [PATCH] PR target/71549: Convert V1TImode register to TImode in debug insn

2016-06-21 15:48 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com>: > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 11:53 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Ilya Enkovich <enkovich@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> On 20 Jun 09:45, H.J. Lu wrote:

Re: [PATCH] PR target/71549: Convert V1TImode register to TImode in debug insn

On 20 Jun 09:45, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 7:30 AM, Ilya Enkovich <enkovich@gmail.com> wrote: > > 2016-06-20 16:39 GMT+03:00 Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com>: > >> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 1:55 PM, H.J. Lu <hongjiu...@intel.com> wrote: >

Re: [PATCH] PR target/71549: Convert V1TImode register to TImode in debug insn

2016-06-20 16:39 GMT+03:00 Uros Bizjak : > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 1:55 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> TImode register referenced in debug insn can be converted to V1TImode >> by scalar to vector optimization. We need to convert a debug insn if >> it has a

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 03/10] Support epilogues vectorization with no masking

2016-06-17 17:48 GMT+03:00 Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com>: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Ilya Enkovich <enkovich@gmail.com> wrote: >> 2016-06-16 9:00 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com>: >>> On 05/19/2016 01:39 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >>&

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 03/10] Support epilogues vectorization with no masking

2016-06-16 9:00 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com>: > On 05/19/2016 01:39 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> This patch introduces changes required to run vectorizer on loop epilogue. >> This also enables epilogue vectorization using a vector

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 03/10] Support epilogues vectorization with no masking

2016-06-16 8:22 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com>: > On 06/15/2016 05:03 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >> >> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 9:39 PM, Ilya Enkovich >> <enkovich@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> This patch introduc

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 01/10] New compiler options

2016-06-16 8:06 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com>: > On 05/20/2016 05:40 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >> >> 2016-05-20 14:17 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com>: >>> >>> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Ilya Enkovich <enkovich@

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 02/10] Extend _loop_vec_info structure with epilogue related fields

2016-06-16 8:11 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com>: > On 05/19/2016 01:38 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> This patch adds new fields to _loop_vec_info structure to support loop >> epilogue vectorization. >> >> Thanks, >> Ilya &

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 07/10] Support loop epilogue combining

2016-06-16 18:51 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com>: > On 06/16/2016 09:41 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >> >> 2016-06-15 14:44 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com>: >>> >>> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 9:44 PM, Ilya Enkovich <

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 08/10] Support loop epilogue masking and low trip count loop vectorization

2016-06-15 15:00 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com>: > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 9:46 PM, Ilya Enkovich <enkovich@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> This patch enables vectorization of loop epilogues and low trip count >> loops using masking

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 07/10] Support loop epilogue combining

2016-06-15 14:44 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com>: > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 9:44 PM, Ilya Enkovich <enkovich@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> This patch introduces support for loop epilogue combining. This includes >> support in c

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 01/10] New compiler options

On 20 May 14:40, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > > Can you make all these --params then? I think to be useful to users we'd > > want > > them to be loop pragmas rather than options. > > OK, I'll change it to params. I didn't think about control via > pragmas but will

[PATCH, PR middle-end/71488] Fix vectorization of comparison of booleans

operations which work correctly for both vector and scalar masks. Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Is it OK for trunk? What should be done for gcc-6-branch? Port this patch or just restrict vectorization for comparison of booleans? Thanks, Ilya -- gcc/ 2016-06-15 Ilya Enkovich

[PATCH, CHKP, PR middle-end/71529] Fix DECL_CONTEXT for args of instrumentation clones with no body

. Thanks, Ilya -- gcc/ 2016-06-15 Ilya Enkovich <ilya.enkov...@intel.com> PR middle-end/71529 * ipa-chkp.c (chkp_build_instrumented_fndecl): Fix DECL_CONTEXT for copied arguments. gcc/testsuite/ 2016-06-15 Ilya Enkovich <ilya.enkov...@intel.com> PR midd

[PATCH, libmpx] Fix overflow bug

Hi, Current bounds copy algorithm has a bug which causes overflow in a specific case when there are no bounds to copy. Patch was regtested and bootstrapped for x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. I'm going to apply it to trunk and gcc-6-branch. Thanks, Ilya -- libmpx/ 2016-06-10 Ilya Enkovich

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 01/10] New compiler options

Hi Richard, Do you have some comments on other parts of this series? Thanks, Ilya 2016-05-20 14:40 GMT+03:00 Ilya Enkovich <enkovich@gmail.com>: > 2016-05-20 14:17 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com>: >> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Il

Re: ]PATCH][RFC] Initial patch for better performance of 64-bit math instructions in 32-bit mode on x86-64

2016-06-01 13:06 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com>: > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Ilya Enkovich <enkovich@gmail.com> wrote: >> 2016-05-31 19:15 GMT+03:00 Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com>: >>> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Yuri R

Re: ]PATCH][RFC] Initial patch for better performance of 64-bit math instructions in 32-bit mode on x86-64

2016-05-31 19:15 GMT+03:00 Uros Bizjak : > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote: >> Hi Uros, >> >> Here is initial patch to improve performance of 64-bit integer >> arithmetic in 32-bit mode. We discovered that gcc is significantly >>

Re: [patch] Fix segfault in vectorizer

2016-05-31 12:25 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener : > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote: >> Hi, >> >> it's a regression present on the mainline and 6 branch: for the attached Ada >> testcase, optab_for_tree_code segfaults because the

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Remove ifcvt_repair_bool_pattern, re-do bool patterns

2016-05-30 14:04 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener : > > The following patch removes the restriction on seeing a tree of stmts > in vectorizer bool pattern detection (aka single-use). With this > it is no longer necessary to unshare DEFs in ifcvt_repair_bool_pattern > and that

[PATCH, PR middle-end/71279] Avoid folding vec_cond_expr into comparison

Hi, This patch disable transformation of VEC_COND_EXPR into comparison which became invalid after boolean vectors introduciton. Bootstrapped and regtested for x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. OK for trunk and gcc-6? Thanks, Ilya -- gcc/ 2016-05-27 Ilya Enkovich <ilya.enkov...@intel.com>

Re: [vec-cmp, patch 5/6] Disable bool patterns when possible

2016-05-25 14:37 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com>: > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Ilya Enkovich <enkovich@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 21 Oct 11:45, Jeff Law wrote: >>> On 10/08/2015 09:15 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >>> >Hi, >

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 01/10] New compiler options

2016-05-20 14:17 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com>: > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Ilya Enkovich <enkovich@gmail.com> > wrote: >> 2016-05-20 12:26 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com>: >>> On Thu, May 19, 2

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 04/10] Add masking cost

2016-05-20 14:15 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com>: > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Ilya Enkovich <enkovich@gmail.com> > wrote: >> 2016-05-20 12:24 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com>: >>> On Thu, May 19, 2

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 01/10] New compiler options

2016-05-20 12:26 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com>: > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 9:36 PM, Ilya Enkovich <enkovich@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> This patch introduces new options used for loop epilogues vectorization. > > Why's that? Thi

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 04/10] Add masking cost

2016-05-20 12:24 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com>: > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 9:40 PM, Ilya Enkovich <enkovich@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> This patch extends vectorizer cost model to include masking cost by >> adding new c

[PATCH, vec-tails 07/10] Support loop epilogue combining

Hi, This patch introduces support for loop epilogue combining. This includes support in cost estimation and all required changes required to mask vectorized loop. Thanks, Ilya -- gcc/ 2016-05-19 Ilya Enkovich <ilya.enkov...@intel.com> * dbgcnt.def (vect_tail_combine

[PATCH, vec-tails 09/10] Print more info about vectorized loop

Hi, This patch extends dumps for vectorized loops to provide more info about them and also specify used vector size. This is to be used for tests. Thanks, Ilya -- gcc/ 2016-05-19 Ilya Enkovich <ilya.enkov...@intel.com> * tree-vect-loop.c (vect_transform_loop): Print mor

[PATCH, vec-tails 08/10] Support loop epilogue masking and low trip count loop vectorization

Hi, This patch enables vectorization of loop epilogues and low trip count loops using masking. Thanks, Ilya -- gcc/ 2016-05-19 Ilya Enkovich <ilya.enkov...@intel.com> * dbgcnt.def (vect_tail_mask): New. * tree-vect-loop.c (vect_analyze_loop_2): Support maske

[PATCH, vec-tails 06/10] Mark the first vector store generated for a scalar store

and this new fiels is used to mark a chain start. Also original data reference and vector type are preserved in the first vector statement for masking purposes. Thanks, Ilya -- gcc/ 2016-05-19 Ilya Enkovich <ilya.enkov...@intel.com> * tree-vect-stmts.c (vectorizable_mask_load_store)

[PATCH, vec-tails 05/10] Check if loop can be masked

Hi, This patch introduces analysis to determine if loop can be masked (compute LOOP_VINFO_CAN_BE_MASKED and LOOP_VINFO_REQUIRED_MASKS) and compute how much masking costs. Thanks, Ilya -- gcc/ 2016-05-19 Ilya Enkovich <ilya.enkov...@intel.com> * tree-vect-loop.c: Include insn-co

[PATCH, vec-tails 04/10] Add masking cost

Hi, This patch extends vectorizer cost model to include masking cost by adding new cost model locations and new target hook to compute masking cost. Thanks, Ilya -- gcc/ 2016-05-19 Ilya Enkovich <ilya.enkov...@intel.com> * config/i386/i386.c (ix86_init_cost): Extend costs

[PATCH, vec-tails 03/10] Support epilogues vectorization with no masking

Hi, This patch introduces changes required to run vectorizer on loop epilogue. This also enables epilogue vectorization using a vector of smaller size. Thanks, Ilya -- gcc/ 2016-05-19 Ilya Enkovich <ilya.enkov...@intel.com> * tree-if-conv.c (tree_if_conversion): Make

[PATCH, vec-tails 02/10] Extend _loop_vec_info structure with epilogue related fields

Hi, This patch adds new fields to _loop_vec_info structure to support loop epilogue vectorization. Thanks, Ilya -- gcc/ 2016-05-19 Ilya Enkovich <ilya.enkov...@intel.com> * tree-vectorizer.h (struct _loop_vec_info): Add new fields can_be_masked, required_masks, mask_ep

[PATCH, vec-tails 01/10] New compiler options

Hi, This patch introduces new options used for loop epilogues vectorization. Thanks, Ilya -- gcc/ 2016-05-19 Ilya Enkovich <ilya.enkov...@intel.com> * common.opt (flag_tree_vectorize_epilogues): New. (ftree-vectorize-short-loops): New. (ftree-vectorize-epi

[RFC][PATCH, vec-tails 00/10] Support vectorization of loop epilogues

vector statements). We will continue search for cases where masking is profitable for Haswell to tune masking costs appropriately. Below are ChangeLogs for whole series. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg03014.html Thanks, Ilya -- gcc/ 2016-05-19 Ilya Enkovich <ilya.en

Re: [PATCH, PR rtl-optimization/71148] Avoid cleanup_cfg called with invalidated dominance info

On 19 May 09:57, Richard Biener wrote: > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 6:17 PM, Ilya Enkovich <enkovich@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > This patch resolves PR71148 by releasing dominance info before > > cleanup_cfg calls to avoid attempts to fixup invalid dominance

[PATCH, PR rtl-optimization/71148] Avoid cleanup_cfg called with invalidated dominance info

with that. Tracker is P1 and this patch may be OK solution for now. Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Ok for trunk? Thanks, Ilya -- gcc/ 2016-05-18 Ilya Enkovich <ilya.enkov...@intel.com> PR rtl-optimization/71148 * cse.c (rest_of_handle_cse): Free dom

[PATCH, PR target/71114] Fix constants conversion in STV pass

for trunk? Thanks, Ilya -- gcc/ 2016-05-17 Ilya Enkovich <ilya.enkov...@intel.com> PR target/71114 * config/i386/i386.c (dimode_scalar_chain::convert_op): Fix insertion point for instructions generated by validize_mem. gcc/testsuite/ 2016-05-17 Dominique d'Humieres

[PATCH, PR71084] Further improve of CFG change tracking in CSE

Hi, This patch improves cse_cfg_altered computation by taking into account cleanup_cfg returned values. This resolves another case of invalidated dominance info. Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. OK for turnk? Thanks, Ilya -- gcc/ 2016-05-13 Ilya Enkovich <ilya.en

Re: [PATCH, PR tree-optimization/71006] Fix vectype computation for COND_EXPR

2016-05-12 13:38 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com>: > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Ilya Enkovich <enkovich@gmail.com> > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Currently we have a code in vect_determine_vectorization_factor to >> compute ve

[PATCH, PR tree-optimization/71006] Fix vectype computation for COND_EXPR

? Thanks, Ilya -- gcc/ 2016-05-12 Ilya Enkovich <ilya.enkov...@intel.com> PR tree-optimization/71006 * tree-vect-loop.c (vect_determine_vectorization_factor): Don't consider COND_EXPR as a mask producer. gcc/testsuite/ 2016-05-12 Ilya Enkovich <ilya.enkov...@

Re: [PATCH, PR middle-end/70807] Free dominance info in CSE pass

2016-05-11 15:45 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com>: > On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Ilya Enkovich <enkovich@gmail.com> wrote: >> 2016-05-10 21:13 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com>: >>> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Ilya Enkovich <enko

Re: [PATCH, PR middle-end/70807] Free dominance info in CSE pass

2016-05-10 21:13 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com>: > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Ilya Enkovich <enkovich@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Curretly CSE may modify CFG and leave invalid dominance info. This patch >> improves track of CFG changes

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >