[Bug tree-optimization/61743] [5 Regression] Complete unroll is not happened for loops with short upper bound

2015-01-16 Thread rguenther at suse dot de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61743

--- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 15 Jan 2015, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:

 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61743
 
 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
 
What|Removed |Added
 
  CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
 
 --- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
 The testcases fail on x86_64 with -m32:
 grep 'loop with . iterations completely unrolled' pr61743-1.c.128t.cunroll 
 pr61743-1.c:25:5: note: loop with 8 iterations completely unrolled
 pr61743-1.c:16:5: note: loop with 8 iterations completely unrolled
 pr61743-1.c:16:5: note: loop with 3 iterations completely unrolled
 pr61743-1.c:29:5: note: loop with 2 iterations completely unrolled
 pr61743-1.c:24:3: note: loop with 4 iterations completely unrolled
 grep 'loop with . iterations completely unrolled' pr61743-2.c.128t.cunroll 
 pr61743-2.c:25:5: note: loop with 8 iterations completely unrolled
 pr61743-2.c:16:5: note: loop with 8 iterations completely unrolled
 pr61743-2.c:16:5: note: loop with 3 iterations completely unrolled
 pr61743-2.c:29:5: note: loop with 2 iterations completely unrolled
 pr61743-2.c:24:3: note: loop with 4 iterations completely unrolled
 (latest trunk).  With -m64 they work fine.

Huh, it passed for me ontop of r219648.  Let me re-check.


[Bug tree-optimization/61743] [5 Regression] Complete unroll is not happened for loops with short upper bound

2015-01-16 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61743

Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |FIXED

--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Works for me and also for HJ it seems.  (fixed)


[Bug tree-optimization/61743] [5 Regression] Complete unroll is not happened for loops with short upper bound

2015-01-16 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61743

--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jan 16 12:06:07 2015
New Revision: 219725

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219725root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-01-16  Richard Biener  rguent...@suse.de

PR tree-optimization/61743
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr61743-1.c: Add -fno-tree-vectorize.
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr61743-2.c: Likewise.

Modified:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr61743-1.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr61743-2.c


[Bug tree-optimization/61743] [5 Regression] Complete unroll is not happened for loops with short upper bound

2015-01-15 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61743

--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jan 15 15:02:11 2015
New Revision: 219662

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219662root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-01-15  Richard Biener  rguent...@suse.de

PR tree-optimization/61743
* tree-ssa-pre.c (insert_into_preds_of_block): Preserve range
information on PHIs for some simple cases.

* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr61743-1.c: New testcase.
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr61743-2.c: Likewise.

Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr61743-1.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr61743-2.c
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/tree-ssa-pre.c


[Bug tree-optimization/61743] [5 Regression] Complete unroll is not happened for loops with short upper bound

2015-01-15 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61743

Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The testcases fail on x86_64 with -m32:
grep 'loop with . iterations completely unrolled' pr61743-1.c.128t.cunroll 
pr61743-1.c:25:5: note: loop with 8 iterations completely unrolled
pr61743-1.c:16:5: note: loop with 8 iterations completely unrolled
pr61743-1.c:16:5: note: loop with 3 iterations completely unrolled
pr61743-1.c:29:5: note: loop with 2 iterations completely unrolled
pr61743-1.c:24:3: note: loop with 4 iterations completely unrolled
grep 'loop with . iterations completely unrolled' pr61743-2.c.128t.cunroll 
pr61743-2.c:25:5: note: loop with 8 iterations completely unrolled
pr61743-2.c:16:5: note: loop with 8 iterations completely unrolled
pr61743-2.c:16:5: note: loop with 3 iterations completely unrolled
pr61743-2.c:29:5: note: loop with 2 iterations completely unrolled
pr61743-2.c:24:3: note: loop with 4 iterations completely unrolled
(latest trunk).  With -m64 they work fine.


[Bug tree-optimization/61743] [5 Regression] Complete unroll is not happened for loops with short upper bound

2014-11-25 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61743

Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Priority|P3  |P1


[Bug tree-optimization/61743] [5 Regression] Complete unroll is not happened for loops with short upper bound

2014-10-24 Thread ysrumyan at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61743

--- Comment #12 from Yuri Rumyantsev ysrumyan at gmail dot com ---
Richard,

Did you have a chance to look at this and prepare more general fix?

Thanks.
Yuri.

2014-09-08 15:13 GMT+04:00 rguenther at suse dot de gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org:
 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61743

 --- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
 On Mon, 8 Sep 2014, ysrumyan at gmail dot com wrote:

 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61743

 --- Comment #10 from Yuri Rumyantsev ysrumyan at gmail dot com ---
 Richard,

 Do you have any progress?

 No, I didn't yet have time to get back to this.

 --
 You are receiving this mail because:
 You reported the bug.


[Bug tree-optimization/61743] [5 Regression] Complete unroll is not happened for loops with short upper bound

2014-10-24 Thread rguenther at suse dot de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61743

--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 24 Oct 2014, ysrumyan at gmail dot com wrote:

 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61743
 
 --- Comment #12 from Yuri Rumyantsev ysrumyan at gmail dot com ---
 Richard,
 
 Did you have a chance to look at this and prepare more general fix?

No, I'm swamped with other work.  I plan to look into this during
stage3.


[Bug tree-optimization/61743] [5 Regression] Complete unroll is not happened for loops with short upper bound

2014-09-08 Thread ysrumyan at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61743

--- Comment #10 from Yuri Rumyantsev ysrumyan at gmail dot com ---
Richard,

Do you have any progress?

Thanks.

2014-08-13 12:35 GMT+04:00 rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org:
 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61743

 --- Comment #9 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
 (In reply to Yuri Rumyantsev from comment #8)
 Richard,

 I tested both proposed fixes and i turned out that the first one is
 preferable since performance of benchmark came back. Note that hoisting 2nd
 vrp pass gave us another 14% slowdown but I did not investigate it.

 Should I tested your fix or you do it yourself?

 I'd like to explore on how to make it a little more generic, it's a very
 special hack as-is.

 Thanks.

 --
 You are receiving this mail because:
 You reported the bug.


[Bug tree-optimization/61743] [5 Regression] Complete unroll is not happened for loops with short upper bound

2014-09-08 Thread rguenther at suse dot de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61743

--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 8 Sep 2014, ysrumyan at gmail dot com wrote:

 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61743
 
 --- Comment #10 from Yuri Rumyantsev ysrumyan at gmail dot com ---
 Richard,
 
 Do you have any progress?

No, I didn't yet have time to get back to this.