On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr wrote:
Hello,
here is a new patch (passes bootstrap+regtest), which only combines
permutations if the result is the identity. I'll file a PR about more
general
combinations to link to this conversation and the cost hook
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
ramana.radhakrish...@linaro.org wrote:
Of-course, the problem here is this change of semantics with the hook
TARGET_VEC_PERM_CONST_OK. Targets were expanding to generic permutes
with
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012, Marc Glisse wrote:
I'll give it a few more days for the conversation to settle, so I know what I
should do between:
- the barely modified patch you accepted,
- the check asked by Jakub,
- the restriction to identity that prevents any regression (well...),
- something else?
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012, Marc Glisse wrote:
I'll give it a few more days for the conversation to settle, so I know
what I should do between:
- the barely modified patch you accepted,
- the check asked by Jakub,
- the
[It looks like I missed hitting the send button on this response]
Seems to be one instruction shorter at least ;-) Yes, there can be much
worse regressions than that because of the patch (like 40 instructions
instead of 4, in the x86 backend).
If this is replacing 4 instructions with 40 in
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
ramana.radhakrish...@linaro.org wrote:
[It looks like I missed hitting the send button on this response]
Seems to be one instruction shorter at least ;-) Yes, there can be much
worse regressions than that because of the patch (like 40
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 01:46:05PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
Well, we're waiting for someone to break the tie ... I'd go with the original
patch, improving the backends where necessary.
E.g. i?86/x86_64 with just plain -msse2 has only very small subset of
constant shuffles (and no variable
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 01:46:05PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
Well, we're waiting for someone to break the tie ... I'd go with the original
patch, improving the backends where necessary.
E.g. i?86/x86_64 with just
On 15 August 2012 13:07, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 01:46:05PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
Well, we're waiting for someone to break the tie ... I'd go with the original
patch, improving the backends where necessary.
E.g. i?86/x86_64 with just plain -msse2
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 02:15:03PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
Ok. That would still leave us with the issue Ramana brought up - the
target hook returning true unconditionally if a generic permute is
implemented.
We just avoid generic expansion by tree-vect-generic.c that way.
Yeah, if
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 02:15:03PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
Ok. That would still leave us with the issue Ramana brought up - the
target hook returning true unconditionally if a generic permute is
implemented.
We
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 02:36:54PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 02:15:03PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
Ok. That would
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr wrote:
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012, Marc Glisse wrote:
this patch detects permutations of permutations and merges them. It also
canonicalizes permutations a bit more.
There are several issues with this patch:
1) I am not sure we
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr wrote:
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012, Marc Glisse wrote:
1) I am not sure we always want to combine permutations. Indeed, someone
(user? vectorizer?) may have written 2 permutations to help
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr wrote:
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012, Marc Glisse wrote:
1) I am not sure we always want to combine permutations.
I guess people will complain soon enough if this causes horrible performance
regressions in vectorized code.
Not having looked at your patch in great detail,. surely what we don't
want is a situation where 2 constant permutations are converted into
one generic permute. Based on a quick read of
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
ramana.radhakrish...@linaro.org wrote:
I guess people will complain soon enough if this causes horrible performance
regressions in vectorized code.
Not having looked at your patch in great detail,. surely what we don't
want is a situation
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
ramana.radhakrish...@linaro.org wrote:
I guess people will complain soon enough if this causes horrible performance
regressions in vectorized code.
Not having looked at your patch in great
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 03:13:26PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
ramana.radhakrish...@linaro.org wrote:
I guess people will complain soon enough if this causes horrible
performance
regressions in vectorized code.
Not having
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
+ /* Check that it is only used here. We cannot use has_single_use
+ since the expression is using it twice itself... */
Ah ... so then
|| num_imm_uses (op0) != 2
Ah, ok, that's simpler indeed, but there were such dire warnings
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 03:13:26PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
The patch does not do that. It merely assumes that the target knows
how to perform an optimal constant permute and that two constant
permutes never generate better code than a single
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 03:45:00PM +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 03:13:26PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
The patch does not do that. It merely assumes that the target knows
how to perform an optimal constant permute and that
On 13 August 2012 14:21, Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
ramana.radhakrish...@linaro.org wrote:
I guess people will complain soon enough if this causes horrible
performance
On 13 August 2012 14:54, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 03:45:00PM +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 03:13:26PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
The patch does not do that. It merely assumes that the
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
On 13 August 2012 14:21, Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
ramana.radhakrish...@linaro.org wrote:
I guess people will complain soon
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
If your new predicate would match more places (can you do a quick search?)
You mean: if there are more optimizations that either already check for
double use in the same statement, or could benefit from
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012, Marc Glisse wrote:
this patch detects permutations of permutations and merges them. It also
canonicalizes permutations a bit more.
There are several issues with this patch:
1) I am not sure we always want to combine permutations. Indeed, someone
(user? vectorizer?) may
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012, Marc Glisse wrote:
There are several issues with this patch:
Oups:
5) and the testcase needs fixing, just like Jakub just fixed Richard's
testcase, to avoid ABI warnings. But that's easy.
--
Marc Glisse
28 matches
Mail list logo
