On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Yuri Rumyantsev <ysrum...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> I checked that both test-cases from 23855 are sucessfully unswitched
> by proposed patch. I understand that it does not catch deeper loop
> nest as
> for (i=0; i<10; i++)
> for (j=0;j<n;j++)
> for (k=0;k<20;k++)
> ...
> but duplication of middle-loop does not look reasonable.
>
> Here is dump for your second test-case:
>
> void foo(int *ie, int *je, double *x)
> {
> int i, j;
> for (j=0; j<*je; ++j)
> for (i=0; i<*ie; ++i)
> x[i+j] = 0.0;
> }
> grep -i unswitch t6.c.119t.unswitch
> ;; Unswitching outer loop
I was saying that why go with a limited approach when a patch (in
unknown state...)
is available that does it more generally? Also unswitching is quite
expensive compared
to "moving" the invariant condition.
In your patch:
+ if (!nloop->force_vectorize)
+ nloop->force_vectorize = true;
+ if (loop->safelen != 0)
+ nloop->safelen = loop->safelen;
I see no guard on force_vectorize so = true looks bogus here. Please just use
copy_loop_info.
+ if (integer_nonzerop (cond_new))
+ gimple_cond_set_condition_from_tree (cond_stmt, boolean_true_node);
+ else if (integer_zerop (cond_new))
+ gimple_cond_set_condition_from_tree (cond_stmt, boolean_false_node);
gimple_cond_make_true/false (cond_stmt);
btw, seems odd that we have to recompute which loop is the true / false variant
when we just fed a guard condition to loop_version. Can't we statically
determine whether loop or nloop has the in-loop condition true or false?
+ /* Clean-up cfg to remove useless one-argument phi in exit block of
+ outer-loop. */
+ cleanup_tree_cfg ();
I know unswitching is already O(number-of-unswitched-loops * size-of-function)
because it updates SSA form after each individual unswitching (and it does that
because it invokes itself recursively on unswitched loops). But do you really
need to invoke CFG cleanup here?
Richard.
> Yuri.
>
> 2015-07-14 14:06 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com>:
>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Yuri Rumyantsev <ysrum...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> Here is presented simple transformation which tries to hoist out of
>>> outer-loop a check on zero trip count for inner-loop. This is very
>>> restricted transformation since it accepts outer-loops with very
>>> simple cfg, as for example:
>>> acc = 0;
>>> for (i = 1; i <= m; i++) {
>>> for (j = 0; j < n; j++)
>>> if (l[j] == i) { v[j] = acc; acc++; };
>>> acc <<= 1;
>>> }
>>>
>>> Note that degenerative outer loop (without inner loop) will be
>>> completely deleted as dead code.
>>> The main goal of this transformation was to convert outer-loop to form
>>> accepted by outer-loop vectorization (such test-case is also included
>>> to patch).
>>>
>>> Bootstrap and regression testing did not show any new failures.
>>>
>>> Is it OK for trunk?
>>
>> I think this is
>>
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23855
>>
>> as well. It has a patch adding a invariant loop guard hoisting
>> phase to loop-header copying. Yeah, it needs updating to
>> trunk again I suppose. It's always non-stage1 when I come
>> back to that patch.
>>
>> Your patch seems to be very specific and only handles outer
>> loops of innermost loops.
>>
>> Richard.
>>
>>> ChangeLog:
>>> 2015-07-10 Yuri Rumyantsev <ysrum...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> * tree-ssa-loop-unswitch.c: Include "tree-cfgcleanup.h" and
>>> "gimple-iterator.h", add prototype for tree_unswitch_outer_loop.
>>> (tree_ssa_unswitch_loops): Add invoke of tree_unswitch_outer_loop.
>>> (tree_unswitch_outer_loop): New function.
>>>
>>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>>> * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/unswitch-outer-loop-1.c: New test.
>>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-simd-3.c: New test.
