[Bug testsuite/50435] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-25.c (-flto)? scan-tree-dump-times slp "basic block vectorized using SLP" 1

2012-01-12 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50435

Dominique d'Humieres  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
 Resolution||FIXED

--- Comment #14 from Dominique d'Humieres  
2012-01-12 17:06:53 UTC ---
Closing as fixed.

[Bug testsuite/50435] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-25.c (-flto)? scan-tree-dump-times slp "basic block vectorized using SLP" 1

2011-09-16 Thread irar at il dot ibm.com 
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50435

Ira Rosen  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||irar at il dot ibm.com

--- Comment #1 from Ira Rosen  2011-09-16 15:18:11 UTC 
---
(In reply to comment #0)
> 
> indeed no "basic block vectorized using SLP". However compiling the test with
> -ftree-vectorizer-verbose=2 returns
> 
> ...
> Vectorizing loop at /opt/gcc/work/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-25.c:16
> 
> 16: created 2 versioning for alias checks.
> 
> 16: vectorizing stmts using SLP.
> 16: LOOP VECTORIZED.
> ...

I understand that the loop vectorization somehow worked, so could you please
try the following patch to avoid it:

Index: bb-slp-25.c
===
--- bb-slp-25.c (revision 178880)
+++ bb-slp-25.c (working copy)
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@

 short src[N], dst[N];

-void foo (short * __restrict dst, short * __restrict src, int h, int stride)
+void foo (short * __restrict dst, short * __restrict src, int h, int stride,
int dummy)
 {
   int i;
   h /= 16;
@@ -25,6 +25,8 @@ void foo (short * __restrict dst, short
   dst[7] += A*src[7] + src[7+stride];
   dst += 8;
   src += 8;
+  if (dummy == 32)
+abort ();
}
 }

@@ -41,7 +43,7 @@ int main (void)
src[i] = i;
 }

-  foo (dst, src, N, 8);
+  foo (dst, src, N, 8, 0);

   for (i = 0; i < N/2; i++)
 {


> 
> I have applied r178880 on top of r178869 on powerpc-apple-darwin9 and the 
> tests
> pass while I get the above results when I run them manually.

For PowerPC vect_element_align is false, while

/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "basic block vectorized using SLP" 1 "slp"
{ target vect_element_align } } } */

so we don't expect the basic block to get vectorized.

Thanks,
Ira

[Bug testsuite/50435] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-25.c (-flto)? scan-tree-dump-times slp "basic block vectorized using SLP" 1

2011-09-16 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50435

--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres  2011-09-16 
15:53:07 UTC ---
> I understand that the loop vectorization somehow worked, so could you please
> try the following patch to avoid it:

Sorry, but after the patch I still have

Running /opt/gcc/work/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect.exp ...
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-25.c scan-tree-dump-times slp "basic block vectorized
using SLP" 1
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-25.c -flto scan-tree-dump-times slp "basic block
vectorized using SLP" 1

=== gcc Summary for unix/-m32 ===

# of expected passes4
# of unexpected failures2
Running target unix/-m64
...
Running /opt/gcc/work/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect.exp ...
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-25.c scan-tree-dump-times slp "basic block vectorized
using SLP" 1
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-25.c -flto scan-tree-dump-times slp "basic block
vectorized using SLP" 1

=== gcc Summary for unix/-m64 ===

# of expected passes4
# of unexpected failures2

=== gcc Summary ===

# of expected passes8
# of unexpected failures4
/opt/gcc/build_w/gcc/xgcc  version 4.7.0 20110916 (experimental) [trunk
revision 178905] (GCC) 

The loop is not vectorized:

/opt/gcc/work/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-25.c:12: note: vectorized 0
loops in function.

and looking for SLP yields

189: Failed to SLP the basic block.
189: not vectorized: failed to find SLP opportunities in basic block.
43: Failed to SLP the basic block.
43: not vectorized: failed to find SLP opportunities in basic block.
50: Failed to SLP the basic block.
50: not vectorized: failed to find SLP opportunities in basic block.

[Bug testsuite/50435] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-25.c (-flto)? scan-tree-dump-times slp "basic block vectorized using SLP" 1

2011-09-16 Thread irar at il dot ibm.com 
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50435

--- Comment #3 from Ira Rosen  2011-09-16 16:18:37 UTC 
---
Well, at least the loop is not vectorized now :).
Could you please attach the slp dump (-fdump-tree-slp-details)?

Thanks,
Ira

[Bug testsuite/50435] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-25.c (-flto)? scan-tree-dump-times slp "basic block vectorized using SLP" 1

2011-09-16 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50435

--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres  2011-09-16 
17:37:17 UTC ---
Created attachment 25307
  --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25307
slp dump attached

[Bug testsuite/50435] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-25.c (-flto)? scan-tree-dump-times slp "basic block vectorized using SLP" 1

2011-09-18 Thread irar at il dot ibm.com 
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50435

--- Comment #5 from Ira Rosen  2011-09-18 08:52:56 UTC 
---
Thanks.

Data dependence analysis can't determine dependence between src and dst
although they have _restrict_, and it works fine on x86_64-suse-linux for
example... Does darwin have a known problem with restrict?

Thanks,
Ira

[Bug testsuite/50435] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-25.c (-flto)? scan-tree-dump-times slp "basic block vectorized using SLP" 1

2011-09-18 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50435

--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres  2011-09-18 
10:41:09 UTC ---
> Does darwin have a known problem with restrict?

None I am aware of. BTW what is the difference between '*__restrict__'  and '*
__restrict' (or '* __restrict__')?

[Bug testsuite/50435] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-25.c (-flto)? scan-tree-dump-times slp "basic block vectorized using SLP" 1

2011-09-18 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50435

--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres  2011-09-18 
10:45:08 UTC ---
Note that the test succeeds if I replace '* __restrict' with '*__restrict__'

[Bug testsuite/50435] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-25.c (-flto)? scan-tree-dump-times slp "basic block vectorized using SLP" 1

2011-09-18 Thread irar at il dot ibm.com 
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50435

--- Comment #8 from Ira Rosen  2011-09-18 10:48:43 UTC 
---
Looks like there is a difference ;)
I guess it succeeds with the patch to avoid loop vectorization and the fix of
restrict together?

[Bug testsuite/50435] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-25.c (-flto)? scan-tree-dump-times slp "basic block vectorized using SLP" 1

2011-09-18 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50435

--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres  2011-09-18 
10:54:14 UTC ---
> Looks like there is a difference ;)
> I guess it succeeds with the patch to avoid loop vectorization and the fix of 
> restrict together?

Here is the patched test that gives no failure (i.e., yours and the change to
restrict):

--- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-25.c2011-09-15
13:34:18.0 +0200
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-25.c2011-09-18 12:42:21.0
+0200
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@

 short src[N], dst[N];

-void foo (short * __restrict dst, short * __restrict src, int h, int stride)
+void foo (short *__restrict__ dst, short *__restrict__ src, int h, int stride,
int dummy)
 {
   int i;
   h /= 16;
@@ -25,6 +25,8 @@ void foo (short * __restrict dst, short 
   dst[7] += A*src[7] + src[7+stride];
   dst += 8;
   src += 8;
+  if (dummy == 32)
+abort ();
}
 }

@@ -41,7 +43,7 @@ int main (void)
src[i] = i;
 }

-  foo (dst, src, N, 8);
+  foo (dst, src, N, 8, 0);

   for (i = 0; i < N/2; i++)
 {

[Bug testsuite/50435] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-25.c (-flto)? scan-tree-dump-times slp "basic block vectorized using SLP" 1

2011-09-18 Thread irar at il dot ibm.com 
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50435

--- Comment #10 from Ira Rosen  2011-09-18 10:55:19 UTC 
---
Thanks, I'll commit it.

[Bug testsuite/50435] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-25.c (-flto)? scan-tree-dump-times slp "basic block vectorized using SLP" 1

2011-09-18 Thread irar at gcc dot gnu.org 
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50435

--- Comment #11 from irar at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-18 11:41:48 UTC ---
Author: irar
Date: Sun Sep 18 11:41:43 2011
New Revision: 178942

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178942
Log:

PR testsuite/50435
* gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-25.c: Add an if to avoid loop vectorization.
Fix underscores around restrict.


Modified:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-25.c

[Bug testsuite/50435] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-25.c (-flto)? scan-tree-dump-times slp "basic block vectorized using SLP" 1

2011-09-18 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50435

--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres  
2011-09-18 13:11:59 UTC ---
> Thanks, I'll commit it.

Thanks for the quick fix. I'ld like to leave this pr open until someone figure
out what's wrong with darwin and __restrict. 

Note that I have replaced all the occurrences of __restrict with __restrict__ 
I have found in gcc.dg/vect/* and bb-slp-25.c is the only test for which it
mattered.

[Bug testsuite/50435] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-25.c (-flto)? scan-tree-dump-times slp "basic block vectorized using SLP" 1

2011-09-19 Thread irar at il dot ibm.com 
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50435

--- Comment #13 from Ira Rosen  2011-09-19 08:59:44 UTC 
---
(In reply to comment #12)

> Note that I have replaced all the occurrences of __restrict with __restrict__ 
> I have found in gcc.dg/vect/* and bb-slp-25.c is the only test for which it
> mattered.

It is probably just doesn't matter in other tests: we can use versioning for
alias in loop vectorization.