Re: [PATCH] fix PR46029: reimplement if conversion of loads and stores [2nd submitted version of patch]

2015-07-08 Thread Abe
[Abe wrote:] Is the following sufficient? From "doc/invoke.texi", I propose to replace: This is enabled by default if vectorization is enabled. ... with: This is enabled by default when vectorization is enabled anddisabled by default when vectorization is disabled. [Al

Re: [PATCH] fix PR46029: reimplement if conversion of loads and stores [2nd submitted version of patch]

2015-07-08 Thread Alan Lawrence
Abe wrote: [Alan wrote:] Where can I find info on what the different flag values mean? (I had thought they were booleans [...] [Abe wrote:] Sorry; I don`t know if that is documented anywhere yet. In this case, (-1) simply means "defaulted": on if the vectorizer is on, and off if it is

Re: [PATCH] fix PR46029: reimplement if conversion of loads and stores [2nd submitted version of patch]

2015-07-08 Thread Abe
[Alan wrote:] Where can I find info on what the different flag values mean? (I had thought they were booleans [...] [Abe wrote:] Sorry; I don`t know if that is documented anywhere yet. In this case, (-1) simply means "defaulted": on if the vectorizer is on, and off if it is off. (0) mea

Re: [PATCH] fix PR46029: reimplement if conversion of loads and stores [2nd submitted version of patch]

2015-07-06 Thread Abe
[Abe wrote:] This seems like an opportunity for more optimization in the future [On 7/6/15 10:09 AM, Alan Lawrence wrote:] we get enough benefit from the patch, even without my suggested extra change. Ok, fair enough! Thanks for the clarification. You are welcome, sir. [Alan wrote:]

Re: [PATCH] fix PR46029: reimplement if conversion of loads and stores [2nd submitted version of patch]

2015-07-06 Thread Alan Lawrence
Abe wrote: On 7/2/15 4:49 AM, Alan Lawrence wrote: As before, I'm still confused here. This still returns false, i.e. bails out of if-conversion, if the statement could trap. Doesn't the scratchpad let us handle that? Or do we just not care because it won't be vectorizable anyway??? This seems

Re: [PATCH] fix PR46029: reimplement if conversion of loads and stores [2nd submitted version of patch]

2015-07-02 Thread Abe
On 7/2/15 4:49 AM, Alan Lawrence wrote: Thanks, Abe. You are welcome, sir! :-) As before, I'm still confused here. This still returns false, i.e. bails out of if-conversion, if the statement could trap. Doesn't the scratchpad let us handle that? Or do we just not care because it won't be v

Re: [PATCH] fix PR46029: reimplement if conversion of loads and stores [2nd submitted version of patch]

2015-07-02 Thread Alan Lawrence
Thanks, Abe. A couple comments below... @@ -883,7 +733,7 @@ if_convertible_gimple_assign_stmt_p (gimple stmt, if (flag_tree_loop_if_convert_stores) { - if (ifcvt_could_trap_p (stmt, refs)) + if (ifcvt_could_trap_p (stmt)) { if (ifcvt_can_use_mask_load_store

[PATCH] fix PR46029: reimplement if conversion of loads and stores [2nd submitted version of patch]

2015-06-30 Thread Abe
New relative to previous version of same patch: * addressed comments/suggestions from Alan and Richard. * disabled the test cases that are currently not if-converted correctly, pending improvements to the new if-converter Passed regression testing and bootstrap on amd64-linux. 2015-06-12 S