On 06/07/16 13:31, Rainer Orth wrote:
Hi Kyrill,
On 05/07/16 12:24, Rainer Orth wrote:
Marc Glisse <marc.gli...@inria.fr> writes:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2016, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
As for testing I've bootstrapped and tested the patch on aarch64 and
x86_64 with synth_shift_p in vect_synth_mult_by_constant hacked to be
always true to exercise the paths that synthesize the shift by
additions. Marc, could you test this on the sparc targets you care about?
I don't have access to Sparc, you want Rainer here (added in Cc:).
As is, the patch doesn't even build on current mainline:
/vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/gcc/tree-vect-patterns.c:2151:56: error:
'mult_variant' has not been declared
target_supports_mult_synth_alg (struct algorithm *alg, mult_variant var,
^
enum mult_variant is only declared in expmed.c.
Ah, sorry I forgot to mention that this is patch 2/2.
It requires https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-06/msg01144.html which
is already approved
but I was planning to commit it together with this one.
Can you please try applying
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-06/msg01144.html
as well as this?
sure, that did the trick. A sparc-sun-solaris2.12 bootstrap revealed
that the patch fixes PR tree-optimization/70923 (you should mention that
in the ChangeLog or close it as a duplicate), with the same caveat as
about Marc's latest patch for that:
Thanks! Much appreciated.
+FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-iv-9.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects scan-tree-dump-times vect
"vectorized 1 loops" 1
+FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-iv-9.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1
The message appears twice, not once, on sparc, so the testcase should be
updated to accomodate that.
Ok.
Besides, the new testcase FAILs:
+FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr65951.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects scan-tree-dump-times vect
"vectorized 1 loops" 2
+FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr65951.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 2
The dump contains
gcc.dg/vect/pr65951.c:14:3: note: not vectorized: no vectype for stmt: _4 = *_3;
gcc.dg/vect/pr65951.c:12:1: note: vectorized 0 loops in function.
gcc.dg/vect/pr65951.c:21:3: note: not vectorized: no vectype for stmt: _4 = *_3;
gcc.dg/vect/pr65951.c:19:1: note: vectorized 0 loops in function.
gcc.dg/vect/pr65951.c:55:15: note: not vectorized: control flow in loop.
gcc.dg/vect/pr65951.c:46:3: note: not vectorized: loop contains function calls
or data references that cannot be analyzed
gcc.dg/vect/pr65951.c:41:15: note: not vectorized: control flow in loop.
gcc.dg/vect/pr65951.c:32:3: note: not vectorized: loop contains function calls
or data references that cannot be analyzed
gcc.dg/vect/pr65951.c:26:1: note: vectorized 0 loops in function.
I see. I suppose SPARC doesn't have vector shifts operating on 64-bit data?
I believe the testcase should be updated to use just "int" arrays rather than "long
long".
I'll respin the testcases
Thanks again,
Kyrill
Rainer
