Re: [PATCH] Fix Fortran DO loop fallback
On 07/13/2016 12:32 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > Changelog has a swapped entry. > > Ok with fixing that. > Richard. Fixed and installed as r238300. M.
Re: [PATCH] Fix Fortran DO loop fallback
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Martin Liška wrote: > On 07/12/2016 03:15 PM, Richard Biener wrote: >> The scan for 1 *n_ after FRE looks still useful. Btw, the testcase >> doesn't fail for me, >> we _do_ hoist the division in PRE, just not with -m32 anymore. Can >> you confirm this? > > Yeah, it works for both -m32 and -m64. > This is final version of the patch, may I install it? Changelog has a swapped entry. Ok with fixing that. Richard. > Thanks, > Martin
Re: [PATCH] Fix Fortran DO loop fallback
On 07/12/2016 03:15 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> The scan for 1 *n_ after FRE looks still useful. Btw, the testcase
> doesn't fail for me,
> we _do_ hoist the division in PRE, just not with -m32 anymore. Can
> you confirm this?
Yeah, it works for both -m32 and -m64.
This is final version of the patch, may I install it?
Thanks,
Martin
>From e23c13dcc2f5e1967b0941c7a627241e3b6759e8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: marxin
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 15:51:54 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Fix Fortran DO loop fallback
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2016-07-08 Martin Liska
* gfortran.dg/ldist-1.f90: Revert change introduces in r238114.
* gfortran.dg/pr42108.f90: Add -fno-ipa-icf to additional
options.
* gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283.f: Update expected dump scan.
---
gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ldist-1.f90| 2 +-
gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr42108.f90| 2 --
gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283.f | 2 +-
3 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ldist-1.f90 b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ldist-1.f90
index 2030328..ea3990d 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ldist-1.f90
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ldist-1.f90
@@ -32,4 +32,4 @@ end Subroutine PADEC
! There are 5 legal partitions in this code. Based on the data
! locality heuristic, this loop should not be split.
-! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "distributed: split to" "ldist" } }
+! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-not "distributed: split to" "ldist" } }
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr42108.f90 b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr42108.f90
index eb93604..a913aa4 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr42108.f90
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr42108.f90
@@ -21,7 +21,5 @@ subroutine eval(foo1,foo2,foo3,foo4,x,n,nnd)
end do
end subroutine eval
-! We should have hoisted the division
-! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "in all uses of countm1\[^\n\]* / " "pre" } }
! There should be only one load from n left
! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "\\*n_" 1 "fre1" } }
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283.f b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283.f
index 7df3d99..4d8cba1 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283.f
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283.f
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
C { dg-do compile }
-C { dg-additional-options "-fvect-cost-model=dynamic" }
+C { dg-additional-options "-fvect-cost-model=dynamic -fno-ipa-icf" }
subroutine test2(x,y)
real x(4),y(4)
beta=3.141593
--
2.8.4
Re: [PATCH] Fix Fortran DO loop fallback
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 07/12/2016 12:14 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> On 07/08/2016 08:26 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello
>>>>
>>>> Following patch fixes fallout caused by the patch set:
>>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2016-07/msg00097.html
>>>>
>>>> Ready after it finished regression tests?
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 0001-Fix-Fortran-DO-loop-fallback.patch
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From c5dd7ad62f795cce560c7f1bb8767b7ed9298d8a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>>> From: marxin
>>>> Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 15:51:54 +0200
>>>> Subject: [PATCH] Fix Fortran DO loop fallback
>>>>
>>>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>>>>
>>>> 2016-07-08 Martin Liska
>>>>
>>>> * gfortran.dg/ldist-1.f90: Update expected dump scan.
>>>> * gfortran.dg/pr42108.f90: Likewise.
>>>> * gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283.f: Likewise.
>>>
>>> Shouldn't ldist-1.f90 be scan-tree-dump-not? It seems like you change it
>>> from that just last week, but it wasn't mentioned in the ChangeLog.
>>
>> gfortran.dg/pr42108.f90 also looks pointless now? I suppose there is nothing
>> to hoist after the change? Do we now have an option to revert back to old
>> behavior? If so it would be better to use that flag here.
>
> No, there's no option. So, as the test-case now looks pointless, should I
> mark it
> with xfail now?
The scan for 1 *n_ after FRE looks still useful. Btw, the testcase
doesn't fail for me,
we _do_ hoist the division in PRE, just not with -m32 anymore. Can
you confirm this?
>>
>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283.f
>> b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283.f
>> index 7df3d99..2933f51 100644
>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283.f
>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283.f
>> @@ -13,4 +13,4 @@ C { dg-additional-options "-fvect-cost-model=dynamic" }
>>beta=3.141593
>>y=y+beta*x
>>end
>> -C { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorized 1 loops" 2 "vect" {
>> target { vect_hw_misalign } } } }
>> +C { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "vectorized 1 loops" "vect" { target {
>> vect_hw_misalign } } } }
>>
>> so why do we no longer vectorize 1 loops in two functions? The
>> testcase works for me
>> unchanged.
>
> Yeah, it works on -m64, however as we're able to merge the functions with
> -m32 (-fipa-icf),
> then I recommend to disable ICF for the test-case.
>
> Reason why the pair of functions on x86_64 is that:
>
> test3 (real(kind=4)[4] * restrict x, real(kind=4)[4] * restrict y)
> {
> :
>
> :
> # S.0_6 = PHI <1(2), S.0_12(4)>
> if (S.0_6 > 4)
> goto ;
> else
> goto ;
> ...
>
> test2 (real(kind=4)[4] * restrict x, real(kind=4)[4] * restrict y)
> {
> integer(kind=4) i;
>
> :
>
> :
> # i_6 = PHI <1(2), i_12(4)>
> ...
>
> On x86_64 types of 'S.0_6' and 'i' are not compatible. As I've just read tree
> dump files,
> # S.0_6 = PHI <1(2), S.0_12(4)>
> if (S.0_6 > 4)
>
> is optimized out by VRP, which runs after IPA ICF.
>
> I'll send patch right after we'll agree on pr42108.f90.
>
> Thanks,
> Martin
>
>>
>> Richard.
>>
>>> OK with that change.
>>>
>>> jeff
>>>
>>>
>
Re: [PATCH] Fix Fortran DO loop fallback
On 07/12/2016 12:14 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 07/08/2016 08:26 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello
>>>
>>> Following patch fixes fallout caused by the patch set:
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2016-07/msg00097.html
>>>
>>> Ready after it finished regression tests?
>>> Thanks,
>>> Martin
>>>
>>>
>>> 0001-Fix-Fortran-DO-loop-fallback.patch
>>>
>>>
>>> From c5dd7ad62f795cce560c7f1bb8767b7ed9298d8a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: marxin
>>> Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 15:51:54 +0200
>>> Subject: [PATCH] Fix Fortran DO loop fallback
>>>
>>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>>>
>>> 2016-07-08 Martin Liska
>>>
>>> * gfortran.dg/ldist-1.f90: Update expected dump scan.
>>> * gfortran.dg/pr42108.f90: Likewise.
>>> * gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283.f: Likewise.
>>
>> Shouldn't ldist-1.f90 be scan-tree-dump-not? It seems like you change it
>> from that just last week, but it wasn't mentioned in the ChangeLog.
>
> gfortran.dg/pr42108.f90 also looks pointless now? I suppose there is nothing
> to hoist after the change? Do we now have an option to revert back to old
> behavior? If so it would be better to use that flag here.
No, there's no option. So, as the test-case now looks pointless, should I mark
it
with xfail now?
>
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283.f
> b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283.f
> index 7df3d99..2933f51 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283.f
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283.f
> @@ -13,4 +13,4 @@ C { dg-additional-options "-fvect-cost-model=dynamic" }
>beta=3.141593
>y=y+beta*x
>end
> -C { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorized 1 loops" 2 "vect" {
> target { vect_hw_misalign } } } }
> +C { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "vectorized 1 loops" "vect" { target {
> vect_hw_misalign } } } }
>
> so why do we no longer vectorize 1 loops in two functions? The
> testcase works for me
> unchanged.
Yeah, it works on -m64, however as we're able to merge the functions with -m32
(-fipa-icf),
then I recommend to disable ICF for the test-case.
Reason why the pair of functions on x86_64 is that:
test3 (real(kind=4)[4] * restrict x, real(kind=4)[4] * restrict y)
{
:
:
# S.0_6 = PHI <1(2), S.0_12(4)>
if (S.0_6 > 4)
goto ;
else
goto ;
...
test2 (real(kind=4)[4] * restrict x, real(kind=4)[4] * restrict y)
{
integer(kind=4) i;
:
:
# i_6 = PHI <1(2), i_12(4)>
...
On x86_64 types of 'S.0_6' and 'i' are not compatible. As I've just read tree
dump files,
# S.0_6 = PHI <1(2), S.0_12(4)>
if (S.0_6 > 4)
is optimized out by VRP, which runs after IPA ICF.
I'll send patch right after we'll agree on pr42108.f90.
Thanks,
Martin
>
> Richard.
>
>> OK with that change.
>>
>> jeff
>>
>>
Re: [PATCH] Fix Fortran DO loop fallback
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 07/08/2016 08:26 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>
>> Hello
>>
>> Following patch fixes fallout caused by the patch set:
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2016-07/msg00097.html
>>
>> Ready after it finished regression tests?
>> Thanks,
>> Martin
>>
>>
>> 0001-Fix-Fortran-DO-loop-fallback.patch
>>
>>
>> From c5dd7ad62f795cce560c7f1bb8767b7ed9298d8a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: marxin
>> Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 15:51:54 +0200
>> Subject: [PATCH] Fix Fortran DO loop fallback
>>
>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>>
>> 2016-07-08 Martin Liska
>>
>> * gfortran.dg/ldist-1.f90: Update expected dump scan.
>> * gfortran.dg/pr42108.f90: Likewise.
>> * gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283.f: Likewise.
>
> Shouldn't ldist-1.f90 be scan-tree-dump-not? It seems like you change it
> from that just last week, but it wasn't mentioned in the ChangeLog.
gfortran.dg/pr42108.f90 also looks pointless now? I suppose there is nothing
to hoist after the change? Do we now have an option to revert back to old
behavior? If so it would be better to use that flag here.
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283.f
b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283.f
index 7df3d99..2933f51 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283.f
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283.f
@@ -13,4 +13,4 @@ C { dg-additional-options "-fvect-cost-model=dynamic" }
beta=3.141593
y=y+beta*x
end
-C { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorized 1 loops" 2 "vect" {
target { vect_hw_misalign } } } }
+C { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "vectorized 1 loops" "vect" { target {
vect_hw_misalign } } } }
so why do we no longer vectorize 1 loops in two functions? The
testcase works for me
unchanged.
Richard.
> OK with that change.
>
> jeff
>
>
Re: [PATCH] Fix Fortran DO loop fallback
> On Jul 11, 2016, at 7:44 AM, Jeff Law wrote: > > On 07/08/2016 08:26 AM, Martin Liška wrote: >> Hello >> >> Following patch fixes fallout caused by the patch set: >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2016-07/msg00097.html >> >> Ready after it finished regression tests? >> Thanks, >> Martin >> >> >> 0001-Fix-Fortran-DO-loop-fallback.patch >> >> >> From c5dd7ad62f795cce560c7f1bb8767b7ed9298d8a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> From: marxin >> Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 15:51:54 +0200 >> Subject: [PATCH] Fix Fortran DO loop fallback >> >> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: >> >> 2016-07-08 Martin Liska >> >> * gfortran.dg/ldist-1.f90: Update expected dump scan. >> * gfortran.dg/pr42108.f90: Likewise. >> * gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283.f: Likewise. > Shouldn't ldist-1.f90 be scan-tree-dump-not? It seems like you change it > from that just last week, but it wasn't mentioned in the ChangeLog. > > OK with that change. A gentle reminder, fortran patches should include the fortran list...
Re: [PATCH] Fix Fortran DO loop fallback
On 07/08/2016 08:26 AM, Martin Liška wrote: Hello Following patch fixes fallout caused by the patch set: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2016-07/msg00097.html Ready after it finished regression tests? Thanks, Martin 0001-Fix-Fortran-DO-loop-fallback.patch From c5dd7ad62f795cce560c7f1bb8767b7ed9298d8a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: marxin Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 15:51:54 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Fix Fortran DO loop fallback gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-07-08 Martin Liska * gfortran.dg/ldist-1.f90: Update expected dump scan. * gfortran.dg/pr42108.f90: Likewise. * gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283.f: Likewise. Shouldn't ldist-1.f90 be scan-tree-dump-not? It seems like you change it from that just last week, but it wasn't mentioned in the ChangeLog. OK with that change. jeff
[PATCH] Fix Fortran DO loop fallback
Hello
Following patch fixes fallout caused by the patch set:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2016-07/msg00097.html
Ready after it finished regression tests?
Thanks,
Martin
>From c5dd7ad62f795cce560c7f1bb8767b7ed9298d8a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: marxin
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 15:51:54 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Fix Fortran DO loop fallback
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2016-07-08 Martin Liska
* gfortran.dg/ldist-1.f90: Update expected dump scan.
* gfortran.dg/pr42108.f90: Likewise.
* gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283.f: Likewise.
---
gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ldist-1.f90| 2 +-
gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr42108.f90| 2 --
gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283.f | 2 +-
3 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ldist-1.f90 b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ldist-1.f90
index 2030328..071a651 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ldist-1.f90
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ldist-1.f90
@@ -32,4 +32,4 @@ end Subroutine PADEC
! There are 5 legal partitions in this code. Based on the data
! locality heuristic, this loop should not be split.
-! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "distributed: split to" "ldist" } }
+! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "distributed: split to" 0 "ldist" } }
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr42108.f90 b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr42108.f90
index eb93604..a913aa4 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr42108.f90
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr42108.f90
@@ -21,7 +21,5 @@ subroutine eval(foo1,foo2,foo3,foo4,x,n,nnd)
end do
end subroutine eval
-! We should have hoisted the division
-! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "in all uses of countm1\[^\n\]* / " "pre" } }
! There should be only one load from n left
! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "\\*n_" 1 "fre1" } }
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283.f b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283.f
index 7df3d99..2933f51 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283.f
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/pr62283.f
@@ -13,4 +13,4 @@ C { dg-additional-options "-fvect-cost-model=dynamic" }
beta=3.141593
y=y+beta*x
end
-C { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorized 1 loops" 2 "vect" { target { vect_hw_misalign } } } }
+C { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "vectorized 1 loops" "vect" { target { vect_hw_misalign } } } }
--
2.8.4
