https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37021
Bug 37021 depends on bug 54939, which changed state.
Bug 54939 Summary: Very poor vectorization of loops with complex arithmetic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54939
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37021
Bug 37021 depends on bug 43434, which changed state.
Bug 43434 Summary: Missed vectorization: "not vectorized: data ref analysis":
pointer incremented by a parameter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43434
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37021
Bug 37021 depends on bug 56902, which changed state.
Bug 56902 Summary: Fails to SLP with mismatched +/- and negatable constants
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56902
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37021
--- Comment #24 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 27 Aug 2015, wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37021
--- Comment #22 from Bill Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37021
--- Comment #26 from Bill Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #25)
Ah, thank you for the clarification. So does this require
-fvect-cost-model=unlimited on all targets? If so, then I'll move on;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37021
--- Comment #25 from Bill Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Ah, thank you for the clarification. So does this require
-fvect-cost-model=unlimited on all targets? If so, then I'll move on;
otherwise I'll have a look at the Power-specific
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37021
--- Comment #23 from Bill Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 36261
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36261action=edit
tree-slp-details dump
Ah, I was looking at the code in the test suite this time,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37021
--- Comment #22 from Bill Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #21)
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #20)
...snip...
I see it only failing due to cost issues (tried ppc64le and -mcpu=power8).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37021
--- Comment #21 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #20)
We still don't vectorize the original code example on Power. It appears
that this is being disabled because of an alignment issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37021
Bill Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37021
Bug 37021 depends on bug 56766, which changed state.
Bug 56766 Summary: Fails to combine (vec_select (vec_concat ...)) to (vec_merge
...)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56766
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37021
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37021
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue May 12 11:55:40 2015
New Revision: 223059
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223059root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-05-12 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37021
--- Comment #17 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2013-04-07 13:18:27 UTC ---
The test gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-pr37021.f90 fails on powerpc*-* (see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2013-04/msg00677.html ). Isn't it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37021
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-27
10:39:00 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Mar 27 10:38:29 2013
New Revision: 197158
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=197158root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-03-27
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37021
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-27
10:40:40 UTC ---
We now vectorize this testcase by means of using strided loads, relying on
store motion turning the store to self(i) in the innermost look into a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37021
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-13
15:58:31 UTC ---
The following testcase shows the issue well:
_Complex double self[1024];
_Complex double a[1024][1024];
_Complex double b[1024];
void foo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37021
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||53947
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37021
sebastian.heg...@tu-dresden.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37021
--- Comment #11 from sebastian.heg...@tu-dresden.de 2011-03-25 11:38:37 UTC ---
Forget that about folding stuff into one loop, I didn't have my morning coffee
yet. However, the rest still applies.
I'm looking forward to some help in that regard.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37021
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2011-03-25 12:40:10 UTC ---
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011, sebastian.heg...@tu-dresden.de wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37021
--- Comment #11 from
--- Comment #9 from dorit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-27 12:40 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
The testcase should be
subroutine to_product_of(self,a,b,a1,a2)
complex(kind=8) :: self (:)
complex(kind=8), intent(in) :: a(:,:)
complex(kind=8), intent(in) :: b(:)
integer
--- Comment #6 from irar at il dot ibm dot com 2009-01-25 09:12 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
So,
4) The vectorized version sucks because we have to use peeling for niters
because we need to unroll the loop once and cannot apply SLP here.
What do you mean by unroll the loop
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-01-25 11:04 ---
Subject: Re: Fortran Complex reduction /
multiplication not vectorized
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, irar at il dot ibm dot com wrote:
--- Comment #6 from irar at il dot ibm dot com 2009-01-25 09:12 ---
(In
--- Comment #8 from irar at il dot ibm dot com 2009-01-25 12:17 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Q1: does SLP work with reductions at all?
No. SLP currently originates from groups of strided stores.
Ah, I see. In this loop we have two reductions, so to apply SLP
we would need to
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-23 15:33 ---
The testcase should be
subroutine to_product_of(self,a,b,a1,a2)
complex(kind=8) :: self (:)
complex(kind=8), intent(in) :: a(:,:)
complex(kind=8), intent(in) :: b(:)
integer a1,a2
do i = 1,a1
do j =
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-23 15:36 ---
So,
4) The vectorized version sucks because we have to use peeling for niters
because we need to unroll the loop once and cannot apply SLP here.
Q1: does SLP work with reductions at all?
Q2: does SLP do
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-21 15:43 ---
Mine. I am working on adding versioning for non-constant strides.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-19 15:29 ---
3) is because data-ref requires a constant step
else if (!simple_iv (loop, stmt, poffset, offset_iv, false))
{
if (dump_file (dump_flags TDF_DETAILS))
fprintf (dump_file, failed: evolution of
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-04 17:58 ---
Patch for 1) http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-08/msg00221.html
Patch for 2) http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-08/msg00226.html
I didn't yet start on 3), so 4) is unknown yet (as is 5, 6, ... ;))
--
30 matches
Mail list logo
