Re: [PATCH] adjust vectorization expectations for ppc costmodel 76b

2024-05-24 Thread Alexandre Oliva
On May 23, 2024, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Apr 29, 2024, "Kewen.Lin" wrote: >> I think you can still push the patch as the testing just exposes >> another issue. > ACK, thanks, I've just confirmed that the problem I reported on > ppc64el-linux-gnu didn't come up when testing on ppc64-vx7r2

Re: [PATCH] adjust vectorization expectations for ppc costmodel 76b

2024-05-23 Thread Alexandre Oliva
On Apr 29, 2024, "Kewen.Lin" wrote: > I think you can still push the patch as the testing just exposes > another issue. ACK, thanks, I've just confirmed that the problem I reported on ppc64el-linux-gnu didn't come up when testing on ppc64-vx7r2 with a non-power8 emulated cpu, so I'm going to

Re: [PATCH] adjust vectorization expectations for ppc costmodel 76b

2024-04-29 Thread Kewen.Lin
on 2024/4/29 14:28, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Apr 28, 2024, "Kewen.Lin" wrote: > >> Nit: Maybe add a prefix "testsuite: ". > > ACK > >>> >>> From: Kewen Lin > >> Thanks, you can just drop this. :) > > I've turned it into Co-Authored-By, since you insist. > > But unfortunately with the

Re: [PATCH] adjust vectorization expectations for ppc costmodel 76b

2024-04-29 Thread Alexandre Oliva
On Apr 28, 2024, "Kewen.Lin" wrote: > Nit: Maybe add a prefix "testsuite: ". ACK >> >> From: Kewen Lin > Thanks, you can just drop this. :) I've turned it into Co-Authored-By, since you insist. But unfortunately with the patch it still fails when testing for -mcpu=power7 on

Re: [PATCH] adjust vectorization expectations for ppc costmodel 76b

2024-04-28 Thread Kewen.Lin
Hi, on 2024/4/28 16:14, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Apr 24, 2024, "Kewen.Lin" wrote: > >> For !has_arch_pwr7 case, it still adopts peeling but as the comment (one >> line above) >> shows the original intention of this case is to expect not profitable for >> peeling >> so it's not expected to

Re: [PATCH] adjust vectorization expectations for ppc costmodel 76b

2024-04-28 Thread Alexandre Oliva
On Apr 24, 2024, "Kewen.Lin" wrote: > For !has_arch_pwr7 case, it still adopts peeling but as the comment (one line > above) > shows the original intention of this case is to expect not profitable for > peeling > so it's not expected to be handled here, can we just tweak the loop bound >

Re: [PATCH] adjust vectorization expectations for ppc costmodel 76b

2024-04-24 Thread Kewen.Lin
Hi, on 2024/4/22 17:28, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > Ping? > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-March/566525.html > > > This test expects vectorization at power8+ because strict alignment is > not required for vectors. For power7, vectorization is not to take > place because it's not

[PATCH] adjust vectorization expectations for ppc costmodel 76b

2024-04-22 Thread Alexandre Oliva
Ping? https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-March/566525.html This test expects vectorization at power8+ because strict alignment is not required for vectors. For power7, vectorization is not to take place because it's not deemed profitable: 12 iterations would be required to make it