https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110625
--- Comment #20 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Hao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4d8b5563179f3a7ca268b64f71731a4878635497
commit r14-2973-g4d8b5563179f3a7ca268b64f71731a4878635497
Author: Hao Liu
Date: Fri Aug 4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110625
--- Comment #19 from Hao Liu ---
> Hi, here's the reduced case
Hi Tarmar, thanks for the case. I've modified it to reproduce the ICE without
LTO and have updated the patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110625
--- Comment #18 from Tamar Christina ---
Hi, here's the reduced case:
> cat analyse.i
double x264_weights_analyse___trans_tmp_1;
float x264_weights_analyse_ref_mean;
x264_weights_analyse() {
x264_weights_analyse___trans_tmp_1 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110625
--- Comment #17 from Hao Liu ---
> Thanks! I can reduce a testcase for you if you want :)
That will be very helpful. Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110625
--- Comment #16 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Hao Liu from comment #15)
> Ah, I see.
>
> I've sent out a quick fix patch for code review. I'll investigate more
> about this and find out the root cause.
Thanks! I can reduce a testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110625
--- Comment #15 from Hao Liu ---
Ah, I see.
I've sent out a quick fix patch for code review. I'll investigate more about
this and find out the root cause.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110625
--- Comment #14 from Tamar Christina ---
Or rather, info_for_reduction looks at the original statement if it's a
pattern, whereas vect_is_reduction only looks at the direct statement.
You'll probably want to check vect_orig_stmt if using
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110625
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110625
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Hao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bf67bf4880ce5be0b6e48c7c35828528b7be12ed
commit r14-2877-gbf67bf4880ce5be0b6e48c7c35828528b7be12ed
Author: Hao Liu
Date: Mon Jul 31
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110625
--- Comment #11 from Hao Liu ---
Hi Richard,
That's great! Glad to hear the status. Waiting for the patches to be ready and
upstreamed to trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110625
--- Comment #10 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Created attachment 55654
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55654=edit
Candidate patch (part 2)
Sorry for the delay. I'm testing the attached two patches to fix the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110625
--- Comment #9 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Created attachment 55653
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55653=edit
Candidate patch (part 1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110625
--- Comment #8 from Hao Liu ---
Thanks for the explanation. Understood the root cause and that's reasonable.
So, do you have plan to fix this (i.e. to separate the FP and integer types)?
I want to enable the new costs for Ampere1, which is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110625
--- Comment #7 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
The current issue rate framework was originally written for Neoverse V1 and
Neoverse V2. For those cores, it wasn't necessary to make a distinction
between scalar integer operations and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110625
--- Comment #6 from Hao Liu ---
Thanks for the confirmation about the reduction latency. I'll create a simple
patch to fix this.
> Discounting the loads, we do have 15 general operations.
That's true, and there are indeed 8 general
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110625
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110625
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110625
--- Comment #3 from Hao Liu ---
Sorry, it seems this case can not be fixed by only adjusting the calculation of
"reduction latency". Even it becomes smaller, the case still can not be
vectorized as the "general operations" count is still too
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110625
--- Comment #2 from Hao Liu ---
To my understanding, "reduction latency" is the least number of cycles needed
to do the reduction calculation for 1 iteration of loop. It is calcualted by
the extra instruction issue-info of the new cost models
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110625
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64
Keywords|
20 matches
Mail list logo
