https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99395
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99395
--- Comment #19 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024, juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99395
>
> --- Comment #18 from JuzheZhong ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99395
--- Comment #18 from JuzheZhong ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #17)
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024, juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99395
> >
> > --- Comment #16 from JuzheZhong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99395
--- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024, juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99395
>
> --- Comment #16 from JuzheZhong ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99395
--- Comment #16 from JuzheZhong ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #15)
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024, juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99395
> >
> > --- Comment #14 from JuzheZhong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99395
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024, juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99395
>
> --- Comment #14 from JuzheZhong ---
> Thanks Richard.
>
> It seems that we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99395
--- Comment #14 from JuzheZhong ---
Thanks Richard.
It seems that we can't fix this issue for now. Is that right ?
If I understand correctly, do you mean we should wait after SLP representations
are finished and then revisit this PR?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99395
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to JuzheZhong from comment #12)
> OK. It seems it has data dependency issue:
>
> missed: not vectorized, possible dependence between data-refs a[i_15] and
> a[_4]
>
> a[i_15] = _3; STMT 1
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99395
--- Comment #12 from JuzheZhong ---
OK. It seems it has data dependency issue:
missed: not vectorized, possible dependence between data-refs a[i_15] and
a[_4]
a[i_15] = _3; STMT 1
_4 = i_15 + 2;
_5 = a[_4];STMT 2
STMT2 should not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99395
--- Comment #11 from JuzheZhong ---
It seems that we should fix this case (Richard gave) first which I think it's
not the SCEV or value-numbering issue:
double a[1024];
void foo ()
{
for (int i = 0; i < 1022; i += 2)
{
double tem =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99395
--- Comment #10 from JuzheZhong ---
I think the root cause is we think i_16 and _1 are alias due to scalar
evolution:
(get_scalar_evolution
(scalar = i_16)
(scalar_evolution = {0, +, 2}_1))
(get_scalar_evolution
(scalar = _1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99395
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to JuzheZhong from comment #8)
> Hi, Richard.
>
> Now, I find the time to GCC vectorization optimization.
>
> I find this case:
>
> _2 = a[_1];
> ...
> a[i_16] = _4;
> ,,,
> _7 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99395
--- Comment #8 from JuzheZhong ---
Hi, Richard.
Now, I find the time to GCC vectorization optimization.
I find this case:
_2 = a[_1];
...
a[i_16] = _4;
,,,
_7 = a[_1];---> This load should be eliminated and re-use _2.
Am I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99395
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2021-03-05 00:00:00 |2023-10-9
--- Comment #7 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99395
JuzheZhong changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99395
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Fixing the CSE in the testcase by doing
double a[1024];
void foo ()
{
for (int i = 0; i < 1022; i += 2)
{
double tem = a[i+1];
a[i] = tem * a[i];
a[i+1] = a[i+2] * tem;
}
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99395
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
So in the BB SLP attempt from loop vectorization (or in the BB SLP pass with
-fno-predictive-commoning) we get confused during DR group building because
of a duplicate access and fixup splitting the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99395
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
ICC version seems to run faster
0040a050 :
40a050: 55 push %rbp
40a051: 48 89 e5mov%rsp,%rbp
40a054: 48 83 e4 e0 and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99395
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-03-05
CC|
19 matches
Mail list logo
