Re: [Patch] Increase array sizes in vect-tests to enable 256-bit vectorization
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Michael Zolotukhin wrote: > Hi, Richard, > Accidentally, the first version of the patch (which contained changes > in the original files without duplicating them, and which was approved > by Ira Rosen) has already been checked-in to trunk - could you also > approve reverting the original tests back? With this revert I'll also > commit the last version of the patch. Yes, reverting that is ok. > Michael > > On 7 December 2011 16:08, Richard Guenther wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Michael Zolotukhin >> wrote: >>> Thanks, Richard. >>> Should somebody else approve the patch or is it ok for commit to trunk? >> >> It's ok to commit. >> >> Richard. >> >>> On 5 December 2011 18:04, Richard Guenther >>> wrote: >>>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Michael Zolotukhin >>>> wrote: >>>>>> I'd just duplicate the tests you want to change to a larger array >>>>>> size and change those duplicates accordingly, leaving the original >>>>>> tests alone. >>>>> Richard, I made the tests this way - please check them in the attached >>>>> patch (it happened to be quite big). >>>> >>>> Works for me. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Richard. >>>> >>>>>> There is vect_multiple_sizes for such cases. >>>>> Ira, thanks! This flag would be useful to avoid fails on the original >>>>> tests when they are compiled with mavx/mavx2 - I'll prepare a patch >>>>> for this soon. >>>>> >>>>> On 5 December 2011 13:10, Richard Guenther >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Ira Rosen wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org wrote on 05/12/2011 10:39:07 AM: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From: Michael Zolotukhin >>>>>>>> To: Richard Guenther >>>>>>>> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, izamya...@gmail.com >>>>>>>> Date: 05/12/2011 10:39 AM >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Patch] Increase array sizes in vect-tests to enable >>>>>>>> 256-bit vectorization >>>>>>>> Sent by: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 5 December 2011 10:14, Michael Zolotukhin >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> > Ok, will several tests with short arrays be enough for that or should >>>>>>>> > we keep all the original tests plus new ones with longer arrays? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> BTW, there is another problem with current tests with short arrays - >>>>>>>> scans are expecting specific number of some diagnostic messages like >>>>>>>> "not vectorized: unsupported unaligned store", and that number would >>>>>>>> be different if several vector-lengths are available - so we'll have >>>>>>>> fails in those tests. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is vect_multiple_sizes for such cases. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd just duplicate the tests you want to change to a larger array >>>>>> size and change those duplicates accordingly, leaving the original >>>>>> tests alone. >>>>>> >>>>>> Richard. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> --- >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Michael V. Zolotukhin, >>>>> Software Engineer >>>>> Intel Corporation. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> --- >>> Best regards, >>> Michael V. Zolotukhin, >>> Software Engineer >>> Intel Corporation. > > -- > --- > Best regards, > Michael V. Zolotukhin, > Software Engineer > Intel Corporation.
Re: [Patch] Increase array sizes in vect-tests to enable 256-bit vectorization
Hi, Richard, Accidentally, the first version of the patch (which contained changes in the original files without duplicating them, and which was approved by Ira Rosen) has already been checked-in to trunk - could you also approve reverting the original tests back? With this revert I'll also commit the last version of the patch. Michael On 7 December 2011 16:08, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Michael Zolotukhin > wrote: >> Thanks, Richard. >> Should somebody else approve the patch or is it ok for commit to trunk? > > It's ok to commit. > > Richard. > >> On 5 December 2011 18:04, Richard Guenther >> wrote: >>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Michael Zolotukhin >>> wrote: >>>>> I'd just duplicate the tests you want to change to a larger array >>>>> size and change those duplicates accordingly, leaving the original >>>>> tests alone. >>>> Richard, I made the tests this way - please check them in the attached >>>> patch (it happened to be quite big). >>> >>> Works for me. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Richard. >>> >>>>> There is vect_multiple_sizes for such cases. >>>> Ira, thanks! This flag would be useful to avoid fails on the original >>>> tests when they are compiled with mavx/mavx2 - I'll prepare a patch >>>> for this soon. >>>> >>>> On 5 December 2011 13:10, Richard Guenther >>>> wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Ira Rosen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org wrote on 05/12/2011 10:39:07 AM: >>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Michael Zolotukhin >>>>>>> To: Richard Guenther >>>>>>> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, izamya...@gmail.com >>>>>>> Date: 05/12/2011 10:39 AM >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Patch] Increase array sizes in vect-tests to enable >>>>>>> 256-bit vectorization >>>>>>> Sent by: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 5 December 2011 10:14, Michael Zolotukhin >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> > Ok, will several tests with short arrays be enough for that or should >>>>>>> > we keep all the original tests plus new ones with longer arrays? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> BTW, there is another problem with current tests with short arrays - >>>>>>> scans are expecting specific number of some diagnostic messages like >>>>>>> "not vectorized: unsupported unaligned store", and that number would >>>>>>> be different if several vector-lengths are available - so we'll have >>>>>>> fails in those tests. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is vect_multiple_sizes for such cases. >>>>> >>>>> I'd just duplicate the tests you want to change to a larger array >>>>> size and change those duplicates accordingly, leaving the original >>>>> tests alone. >>>>> >>>>> Richard. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> --- >>>> Best regards, >>>> Michael V. Zolotukhin, >>>> Software Engineer >>>> Intel Corporation. >> >> >> >> -- >> --- >> Best regards, >> Michael V. Zolotukhin, >> Software Engineer >> Intel Corporation. -- --- Best regards, Michael V. Zolotukhin, Software Engineer Intel Corporation.
Re: [Patch] Increase array sizes in vect-tests to enable 256-bit vectorization
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Michael Zolotukhin wrote: > Thanks, Richard. > Should somebody else approve the patch or is it ok for commit to trunk? It's ok to commit. Richard. > On 5 December 2011 18:04, Richard Guenther wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Michael Zolotukhin >> wrote: >>>> I'd just duplicate the tests you want to change to a larger array >>>> size and change those duplicates accordingly, leaving the original >>>> tests alone. >>> Richard, I made the tests this way - please check them in the attached >>> patch (it happened to be quite big). >> >> Works for me. >> >> Thanks, >> Richard. >> >>>> There is vect_multiple_sizes for such cases. >>> Ira, thanks! This flag would be useful to avoid fails on the original >>> tests when they are compiled with mavx/mavx2 - I'll prepare a patch >>> for this soon. >>> >>> On 5 December 2011 13:10, Richard Guenther >>> wrote: >>>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Ira Rosen wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org wrote on 05/12/2011 10:39:07 AM: >>>>> >>>>>> From: Michael Zolotukhin >>>>>> To: Richard Guenther >>>>>> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, izamya...@gmail.com >>>>>> Date: 05/12/2011 10:39 AM >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Patch] Increase array sizes in vect-tests to enable >>>>>> 256-bit vectorization >>>>>> Sent by: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org >>>>>> >>>>>> On 5 December 2011 10:14, Michael Zolotukhin >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> > Ok, will several tests with short arrays be enough for that or should >>>>>> > we keep all the original tests plus new ones with longer arrays? >>>>>> >>>>>> BTW, there is another problem with current tests with short arrays - >>>>>> scans are expecting specific number of some diagnostic messages like >>>>>> "not vectorized: unsupported unaligned store", and that number would >>>>>> be different if several vector-lengths are available - so we'll have >>>>>> fails in those tests. >>>>> >>>>> There is vect_multiple_sizes for such cases. >>>> >>>> I'd just duplicate the tests you want to change to a larger array >>>> size and change those duplicates accordingly, leaving the original >>>> tests alone. >>>> >>>> Richard. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> --- >>> Best regards, >>> Michael V. Zolotukhin, >>> Software Engineer >>> Intel Corporation. > > > > -- > --- > Best regards, > Michael V. Zolotukhin, > Software Engineer > Intel Corporation.
Re: [Patch] Increase array sizes in vect-tests to enable 256-bit vectorization
Thanks, Richard. Should somebody else approve the patch or is it ok for commit to trunk? On 5 December 2011 18:04, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Michael Zolotukhin > wrote: >>> I'd just duplicate the tests you want to change to a larger array >>> size and change those duplicates accordingly, leaving the original >>> tests alone. >> Richard, I made the tests this way - please check them in the attached >> patch (it happened to be quite big). > > Works for me. > > Thanks, > Richard. > >>> There is vect_multiple_sizes for such cases. >> Ira, thanks! This flag would be useful to avoid fails on the original >> tests when they are compiled with mavx/mavx2 - I'll prepare a patch >> for this soon. >> >> On 5 December 2011 13:10, Richard Guenther >> wrote: >>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Ira Rosen wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org wrote on 05/12/2011 10:39:07 AM: >>>> >>>>> From: Michael Zolotukhin >>>>> To: Richard Guenther >>>>> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, izamya...@gmail.com >>>>> Date: 05/12/2011 10:39 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [Patch] Increase array sizes in vect-tests to enable >>>>> 256-bit vectorization >>>>> Sent by: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org >>>>> >>>>> On 5 December 2011 10:14, Michael Zolotukhin >>>>> wrote: >>>>> > Ok, will several tests with short arrays be enough for that or should >>>>> > we keep all the original tests plus new ones with longer arrays? >>>>> >>>>> BTW, there is another problem with current tests with short arrays - >>>>> scans are expecting specific number of some diagnostic messages like >>>>> "not vectorized: unsupported unaligned store", and that number would >>>>> be different if several vector-lengths are available - so we'll have >>>>> fails in those tests. >>>> >>>> There is vect_multiple_sizes for such cases. >>> >>> I'd just duplicate the tests you want to change to a larger array >>> size and change those duplicates accordingly, leaving the original >>> tests alone. >>> >>> Richard. >> >> >> >> -- >> --- >> Best regards, >> Michael V. Zolotukhin, >> Software Engineer >> Intel Corporation. -- --- Best regards, Michael V. Zolotukhin, Software Engineer Intel Corporation.
Re: [Patch] Increase array sizes in vect-tests to enable 256-bit vectorization
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Michael Zolotukhin wrote: >> I'd just duplicate the tests you want to change to a larger array >> size and change those duplicates accordingly, leaving the original >> tests alone. > Richard, I made the tests this way - please check them in the attached > patch (it happened to be quite big). Works for me. Thanks, Richard. >> There is vect_multiple_sizes for such cases. > Ira, thanks! This flag would be useful to avoid fails on the original > tests when they are compiled with mavx/mavx2 - I'll prepare a patch > for this soon. > > On 5 December 2011 13:10, Richard Guenther wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Ira Rosen wrote: >>> >>> >>> gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org wrote on 05/12/2011 10:39:07 AM: >>> >>>> From: Michael Zolotukhin >>>> To: Richard Guenther >>>> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, izamya...@gmail.com >>>> Date: 05/12/2011 10:39 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [Patch] Increase array sizes in vect-tests to enable >>>> 256-bit vectorization >>>> Sent by: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org >>>> >>>> On 5 December 2011 10:14, Michael Zolotukhin >>>> wrote: >>>> > Ok, will several tests with short arrays be enough for that or should >>>> > we keep all the original tests plus new ones with longer arrays? >>>> >>>> BTW, there is another problem with current tests with short arrays - >>>> scans are expecting specific number of some diagnostic messages like >>>> "not vectorized: unsupported unaligned store", and that number would >>>> be different if several vector-lengths are available - so we'll have >>>> fails in those tests. >>> >>> There is vect_multiple_sizes for such cases. >> >> I'd just duplicate the tests you want to change to a larger array >> size and change those duplicates accordingly, leaving the original >> tests alone. >> >> Richard. > > > > -- > --- > Best regards, > Michael V. Zolotukhin, > Software Engineer > Intel Corporation.
Re: [Patch] Increase array sizes in vect-tests to enable 256-bit vectorization
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Ira Rosen wrote: > > > gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org wrote on 05/12/2011 10:39:07 AM: > >> From: Michael Zolotukhin >> To: Richard Guenther >> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, izamya...@gmail.com >> Date: 05/12/2011 10:39 AM >> Subject: Re: [Patch] Increase array sizes in vect-tests to enable >> 256-bit vectorization >> Sent by: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org >> >> On 5 December 2011 10:14, Michael Zolotukhin >> wrote: >> > Ok, will several tests with short arrays be enough for that or should >> > we keep all the original tests plus new ones with longer arrays? >> >> BTW, there is another problem with current tests with short arrays - >> scans are expecting specific number of some diagnostic messages like >> "not vectorized: unsupported unaligned store", and that number would >> be different if several vector-lengths are available - so we'll have >> fails in those tests. > > There is vect_multiple_sizes for such cases. I'd just duplicate the tests you want to change to a larger array size and change those duplicates accordingly, leaving the original tests alone. Richard.
Re: [Patch] Increase array sizes in vect-tests to enable 256-bit vectorization
gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org wrote on 05/12/2011 10:39:07 AM: > From: Michael Zolotukhin > To: Richard Guenther > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, izamya...@gmail.com > Date: 05/12/2011 10:39 AM > Subject: Re: [Patch] Increase array sizes in vect-tests to enable > 256-bit vectorization > Sent by: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org > > On 5 December 2011 10:14, Michael Zolotukhin > wrote: > > Ok, will several tests with short arrays be enough for that or should > > we keep all the original tests plus new ones with longer arrays? > > BTW, there is another problem with current tests with short arrays - > scans are expecting specific number of some diagnostic messages like > "not vectorized: unsupported unaligned store", and that number would > be different if several vector-lengths are available - so we'll have > fails in those tests. There is vect_multiple_sizes for such cases. Ira > > What is a right way to handle this? Currently I see two ways of doing > it. One way is to just extend array sizes (as I did in the sent > patch), the other way is to remove such scans from all tests > (replacing them with some more general scans). If we are going to > rewrite the scans, we need to be able to distinguish cases when > several lengths are available - for now it looks unclear how to do > this – at the first glance we could add length checkers in > lib/support_targets.exp but this solution seems not quite good. > > What's your opinion on that? > > Best Regards, Michael. > > On 5 December 2011 10:14, Michael Zolotukhin > wrote: > > Ok, will several tests with short arrays be enough for that or should > > we keep all the original tests plus new ones with longer arrays? > > > > Michael > > > > On 4 December 2011 15:44, Richard Guenther > wrote: > >> On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Michael Zolotukhin > >> wrote: > >>>> I mean, that, when 256-bit vectorization is enabled we still use 128bit > >>>> vectorization if the arrays are too short for 256bit > vectorization. You'll > >>>> lose this test coverage when you change the array sizes. > >>> That's true, but do we need all these test both with short and long > >>> arrays? We could have the tests with increased sizes and compile them > >>> with/without use of avx, thus testing both 256- and 128- bit > >>> vectorization. Additionally, we might want to add several tests with > >>> short arrays to check what happens if 256-bit is available, but arrays > >>> is too short for it. I mean we don't need to duplicate all of the > >>> tests to check this situation. > >> > >> Well, initially those tests served as a way to prove that dual-size > >> vectorization > >> works. You should not remove this testing functionality. > >> > >> Richard. > >> > >>> On 3 December 2011 18:31, Richard Guenther > wrote: > >>>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Michael Zolotukhin > >>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Shouldn't we add a variant for each testcase so that we still > >>>>>> excercise both 128-bit and 256-bit vectorization paths? > >>>>> > >>>>> These tests are still good to test 128-bit vectorization, the changes > >>>>> was made just to make sure that 256-bit vectorization is possible on > >>>>> the tests. > >>>>> > >>>>> Actually, It's just first step in enabling these tests for 256 bits - > >>>>> for now many of them are failing if '-mavx' or '-mavx2' is specified > >>>>> (mostly due to different diagnostics messages produced by vectorizer), > >>>>> but with original (small) sizes of arrays we couldn't even check that. > >>>>> When they are enabled, it'll be possible to use them for testing both > >>>>> 128- and 256- bit vectorization. > >>>> > >>>> I mean, that, when 256-bit vectorization is enabled we still use 128bit > >>>> vectorization if the arrays are too short for 256bit > vectorization. You'll > >>>> lose this test coverage when you change the array sizes. > >>>> > >>>> Richard. > >>>> > >>>>> Michael > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 2011/12/2 Richard Guenther : > >>>>>> 2011/12/2 Michael Zolotukhin : > >>>>>&g
Re: [Patch] Increase array sizes in vect-tests to enable 256-bit vectorization
On 5 December 2011 10:14, Michael Zolotukhin wrote: > Ok, will several tests with short arrays be enough for that or should > we keep all the original tests plus new ones with longer arrays? BTW, there is another problem with current tests with short arrays - scans are expecting specific number of some diagnostic messages like "not vectorized: unsupported unaligned store", and that number would be different if several vector-lengths are available - so we'll have fails in those tests. What is a right way to handle this? Currently I see two ways of doing it. One way is to just extend array sizes (as I did in the sent patch), the other way is to remove such scans from all tests (replacing them with some more general scans). If we are going to rewrite the scans, we need to be able to distinguish cases when several lengths are available - for now it looks unclear how to do this – at the first glance we could add length checkers in lib/support_targets.exp but this solution seems not quite good. What's your opinion on that? Best Regards, Michael. On 5 December 2011 10:14, Michael Zolotukhin wrote: > Ok, will several tests with short arrays be enough for that or should > we keep all the original tests plus new ones with longer arrays? > > Michael > > On 4 December 2011 15:44, Richard Guenther wrote: >> On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Michael Zolotukhin >> wrote: I mean, that, when 256-bit vectorization is enabled we still use 128bit vectorization if the arrays are too short for 256bit vectorization. You'll lose this test coverage when you change the array sizes. >>> That's true, but do we need all these test both with short and long >>> arrays? We could have the tests with increased sizes and compile them >>> with/without use of avx, thus testing both 256- and 128- bit >>> vectorization. Additionally, we might want to add several tests with >>> short arrays to check what happens if 256-bit is available, but arrays >>> is too short for it. I mean we don't need to duplicate all of the >>> tests to check this situation. >> >> Well, initially those tests served as a way to prove that dual-size >> vectorization >> works. You should not remove this testing functionality. >> >> Richard. >> >>> On 3 December 2011 18:31, Richard Guenther >>> wrote: On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Michael Zolotukhin wrote: >> >> Shouldn't we add a variant for each testcase so that we still >> excercise both 128-bit and 256-bit vectorization paths? > > These tests are still good to test 128-bit vectorization, the changes > was made just to make sure that 256-bit vectorization is possible on > the tests. > > Actually, It's just first step in enabling these tests for 256 bits - > for now many of them are failing if '-mavx' or '-mavx2' is specified > (mostly due to different diagnostics messages produced by vectorizer), > but with original (small) sizes of arrays we couldn't even check that. > When they are enabled, it'll be possible to use them for testing both > 128- and 256- bit vectorization. I mean, that, when 256-bit vectorization is enabled we still use 128bit vectorization if the arrays are too short for 256bit vectorization. You'll lose this test coverage when you change the array sizes. Richard. > Michael > > > 2011/12/2 Richard Guenther : >> 2011/12/2 Michael Zolotukhin : >>> Hi, >>> >>> This patch increases array sizes in tests from vect.exp suite, thus >>> enabling 256-bit vectorization where it's available. >>> >>> Ok for trunk? >> >> Shouldn't we add a variant for each testcase so that we still >> excercise both 128-bit and 256-bit vectorization paths? >> >>> Changelog: >>> 2011-12-02 Michael Zolotukhin >>> >>> * gcc.dg/vect/slp-13.c: Increase array size, add initialization. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/slp-24.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/slp-3.c: Likewise and fix scans. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/slp-34.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/slp-4.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/slp-cond-2.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/slp-multitypes-11.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-1.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-10.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-105.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-112.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-15.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-2.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-31.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-32.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-33.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-34.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-35.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-36.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-6.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-73.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-74.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-75.c: Ditto. >
Re: [Patch] Increase array sizes in vect-tests to enable 256-bit vectorization
Ok, will several tests with short arrays be enough for that or should we keep all the original tests plus new ones with longer arrays? Michael On 4 December 2011 15:44, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Michael Zolotukhin > wrote: >>> I mean, that, when 256-bit vectorization is enabled we still use 128bit >>> vectorization if the arrays are too short for 256bit vectorization. You'll >>> lose this test coverage when you change the array sizes. >> That's true, but do we need all these test both with short and long >> arrays? We could have the tests with increased sizes and compile them >> with/without use of avx, thus testing both 256- and 128- bit >> vectorization. Additionally, we might want to add several tests with >> short arrays to check what happens if 256-bit is available, but arrays >> is too short for it. I mean we don't need to duplicate all of the >> tests to check this situation. > > Well, initially those tests served as a way to prove that dual-size > vectorization > works. You should not remove this testing functionality. > > Richard. > >> On 3 December 2011 18:31, Richard Guenther >> wrote: >>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Michael Zolotukhin >>> wrote: > > Shouldn't we add a variant for each testcase so that we still > excercise both 128-bit and 256-bit vectorization paths? These tests are still good to test 128-bit vectorization, the changes was made just to make sure that 256-bit vectorization is possible on the tests. Actually, It's just first step in enabling these tests for 256 bits - for now many of them are failing if '-mavx' or '-mavx2' is specified (mostly due to different diagnostics messages produced by vectorizer), but with original (small) sizes of arrays we couldn't even check that. When they are enabled, it'll be possible to use them for testing both 128- and 256- bit vectorization. >>> >>> I mean, that, when 256-bit vectorization is enabled we still use 128bit >>> vectorization if the arrays are too short for 256bit vectorization. You'll >>> lose this test coverage when you change the array sizes. >>> >>> Richard. >>> Michael 2011/12/2 Richard Guenther : > 2011/12/2 Michael Zolotukhin : >> Hi, >> >> This patch increases array sizes in tests from vect.exp suite, thus >> enabling 256-bit vectorization where it's available. >> >> Ok for trunk? > > Shouldn't we add a variant for each testcase so that we still > excercise both 128-bit and 256-bit vectorization paths? > >> Changelog: >> 2011-12-02 Michael Zolotukhin >> >> * gcc.dg/vect/slp-13.c: Increase array size, add initialization. >> * gcc.dg/vect/slp-24.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/slp-3.c: Likewise and fix scans. >> * gcc.dg/vect/slp-34.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/slp-4.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/slp-cond-2.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/slp-multitypes-11.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-1.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-10.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-105.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-112.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-15.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-2.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-31.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-32.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-33.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-34.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-35.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-36.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-6.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-73.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-74.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-75.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-76.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-80.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-85.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-89.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-97.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-98.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-all.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-double-reduc-6.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-iv-8.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-iv-8a.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-1.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-1a.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-1b.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-2.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-2a.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-2c.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-3.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-3a.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-4a.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-4b.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-4c.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-4d.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-4m.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-fir-lb.c: Ditto. >>
Re: [Patch] Increase array sizes in vect-tests to enable 256-bit vectorization
On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Michael Zolotukhin wrote: >> I mean, that, when 256-bit vectorization is enabled we still use 128bit >> vectorization if the arrays are too short for 256bit vectorization. You'll >> lose this test coverage when you change the array sizes. > That's true, but do we need all these test both with short and long > arrays? We could have the tests with increased sizes and compile them > with/without use of avx, thus testing both 256- and 128- bit > vectorization. Additionally, we might want to add several tests with > short arrays to check what happens if 256-bit is available, but arrays > is too short for it. I mean we don't need to duplicate all of the > tests to check this situation. Well, initially those tests served as a way to prove that dual-size vectorization works. You should not remove this testing functionality. Richard. > On 3 December 2011 18:31, Richard Guenther wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Michael Zolotukhin >> wrote: Shouldn't we add a variant for each testcase so that we still excercise both 128-bit and 256-bit vectorization paths? >>> >>> These tests are still good to test 128-bit vectorization, the changes >>> was made just to make sure that 256-bit vectorization is possible on >>> the tests. >>> >>> Actually, It's just first step in enabling these tests for 256 bits - >>> for now many of them are failing if '-mavx' or '-mavx2' is specified >>> (mostly due to different diagnostics messages produced by vectorizer), >>> but with original (small) sizes of arrays we couldn't even check that. >>> When they are enabled, it'll be possible to use them for testing both >>> 128- and 256- bit vectorization. >> >> I mean, that, when 256-bit vectorization is enabled we still use 128bit >> vectorization if the arrays are too short for 256bit vectorization. You'll >> lose this test coverage when you change the array sizes. >> >> Richard. >> >>> Michael >>> >>> >>> 2011/12/2 Richard Guenther : 2011/12/2 Michael Zolotukhin : > Hi, > > This patch increases array sizes in tests from vect.exp suite, thus > enabling 256-bit vectorization where it's available. > > Ok for trunk? Shouldn't we add a variant for each testcase so that we still excercise both 128-bit and 256-bit vectorization paths? > Changelog: > 2011-12-02 Michael Zolotukhin > > * gcc.dg/vect/slp-13.c: Increase array size, add initialization. > * gcc.dg/vect/slp-24.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/slp-3.c: Likewise and fix scans. > * gcc.dg/vect/slp-34.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/slp-4.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/slp-cond-2.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/slp-multitypes-11.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-1.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-10.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-105.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-112.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-15.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-2.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-31.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-32.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-33.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-34.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-35.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-36.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-6.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-73.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-74.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-75.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-76.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-80.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-85.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-89.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-97.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-98.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-all.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-double-reduc-6.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-iv-8.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-iv-8a.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-1.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-1a.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-1b.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-2.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-2a.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-2c.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-3.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-3a.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-4a.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-4b.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-4c.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-4d.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-4m.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-fir-lb.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-fir.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-over-widen-1.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-over-widen-2.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-over-widen-3.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-over-widen-4.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-reduc-1char.c: Dit
Re: [Patch] Increase array sizes in vect-tests to enable 256-bit vectorization
> I mean, that, when 256-bit vectorization is enabled we still use 128bit > vectorization if the arrays are too short for 256bit vectorization. You'll > lose this test coverage when you change the array sizes. That's true, but do we need all these test both with short and long arrays? We could have the tests with increased sizes and compile them with/without use of avx, thus testing both 256- and 128- bit vectorization. Additionally, we might want to add several tests with short arrays to check what happens if 256-bit is available, but arrays is too short for it. I mean we don't need to duplicate all of the tests to check this situation. On 3 December 2011 18:31, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Michael Zolotukhin > wrote: >>> >>> Shouldn't we add a variant for each testcase so that we still >>> excercise both 128-bit and 256-bit vectorization paths? >> >> These tests are still good to test 128-bit vectorization, the changes >> was made just to make sure that 256-bit vectorization is possible on >> the tests. >> >> Actually, It's just first step in enabling these tests for 256 bits - >> for now many of them are failing if '-mavx' or '-mavx2' is specified >> (mostly due to different diagnostics messages produced by vectorizer), >> but with original (small) sizes of arrays we couldn't even check that. >> When they are enabled, it'll be possible to use them for testing both >> 128- and 256- bit vectorization. > > I mean, that, when 256-bit vectorization is enabled we still use 128bit > vectorization if the arrays are too short for 256bit vectorization. You'll > lose this test coverage when you change the array sizes. > > Richard. > >> Michael >> >> >> 2011/12/2 Richard Guenther : >>> 2011/12/2 Michael Zolotukhin : Hi, This patch increases array sizes in tests from vect.exp suite, thus enabling 256-bit vectorization where it's available. Ok for trunk? >>> >>> Shouldn't we add a variant for each testcase so that we still >>> excercise both 128-bit and 256-bit vectorization paths? >>> Changelog: 2011-12-02 Michael Zolotukhin * gcc.dg/vect/slp-13.c: Increase array size, add initialization. * gcc.dg/vect/slp-24.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/slp-3.c: Likewise and fix scans. * gcc.dg/vect/slp-34.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/slp-4.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/slp-cond-2.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/slp-multitypes-11.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-1.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-10.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-105.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-112.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-15.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-2.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-31.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-32.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-33.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-34.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-35.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-36.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-6.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-73.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-74.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-75.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-76.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-80.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-85.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-89.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-97.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-98.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-all.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-double-reduc-6.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-iv-8.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-iv-8a.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-1.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-1a.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-1b.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-2.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-2a.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-2c.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-3.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-3a.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-4a.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-4b.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-4c.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-4d.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-4m.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-fir-lb.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-fir.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-over-widen-1.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-over-widen-2.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-over-widen-3.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-over-widen-4.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-reduc-1char.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-reduc-2char.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-reduc-pattern-1b.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-reduc-pattern-1c.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-reduc-pattern-2b.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-shift-2.c: Ditto. * gcc.dg/vect/vect-strided-a-u8
Re: [Patch] Increase array sizes in vect-tests to enable 256-bit vectorization
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Michael Zolotukhin wrote: >> >> Shouldn't we add a variant for each testcase so that we still >> excercise both 128-bit and 256-bit vectorization paths? > > These tests are still good to test 128-bit vectorization, the changes > was made just to make sure that 256-bit vectorization is possible on > the tests. > > Actually, It's just first step in enabling these tests for 256 bits - > for now many of them are failing if '-mavx' or '-mavx2' is specified > (mostly due to different diagnostics messages produced by vectorizer), > but with original (small) sizes of arrays we couldn't even check that. > When they are enabled, it'll be possible to use them for testing both > 128- and 256- bit vectorization. I mean, that, when 256-bit vectorization is enabled we still use 128bit vectorization if the arrays are too short for 256bit vectorization. You'll lose this test coverage when you change the array sizes. Richard. > Michael > > > 2011/12/2 Richard Guenther : >> 2011/12/2 Michael Zolotukhin : >>> Hi, >>> >>> This patch increases array sizes in tests from vect.exp suite, thus >>> enabling 256-bit vectorization where it's available. >>> >>> Ok for trunk? >> >> Shouldn't we add a variant for each testcase so that we still >> excercise both 128-bit and 256-bit vectorization paths? >> >>> Changelog: >>> 2011-12-02 Michael Zolotukhin >>> >>> * gcc.dg/vect/slp-13.c: Increase array size, add initialization. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/slp-24.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/slp-3.c: Likewise and fix scans. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/slp-34.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/slp-4.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/slp-cond-2.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/slp-multitypes-11.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-1.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-10.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-105.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-112.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-15.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-2.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-31.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-32.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-33.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-34.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-35.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-36.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-6.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-73.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-74.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-75.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-76.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-80.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-85.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-89.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-97.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-98.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-all.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-double-reduc-6.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-iv-8.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-iv-8a.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-1.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-1a.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-1b.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-2.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-2a.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-2c.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-3.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-3a.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-4a.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-4b.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-4c.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-4d.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-4m.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-fir-lb.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-fir.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-over-widen-1.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-over-widen-2.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-over-widen-3.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-over-widen-4.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-reduc-1char.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-reduc-2char.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-reduc-pattern-1b.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-reduc-pattern-1c.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-reduc-pattern-2b.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-shift-2.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-strided-a-u8-i8-gap2.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-strided-a-u8-i8-gap7.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-strided-u8-i8-gap2.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-strided-u8-i8-gap4.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-strided-u8-i8-gap7.c: Ditto. >>> >>> -- >>> --- >>> Best regards, >>> Michael V. Zolotukhin, >>> Software Engineer >>> Intel Corporation.
Re: [Patch] Increase array sizes in vect-tests to enable 256-bit vectorization
Michael Zolotukhin wrote on 02/12/2011
08:11:41 PM:
>
> > Please don't change initial values to 0, we want to check that
everything
> > works fine for non-zeros as well.
> > There are several other occasions in the patch.
>
> Please check the update patch (attached).
This is ok with me.
Thanks,
Ira
>
> On 2 December 2011 20:49, Ira Rosen wrote:
> >
> > gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org wrote on 02/12/2011 06:23:25 PM:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> This patch increases array sizes in tests from vect.exp suite, thus
> >> enabling 256-bit vectorization where it's available.
> >>
> >> Ok for trunk?
> >
> > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/slp-24.c
> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/slp-24.c
> > ...
> > @@ -13,14 +12,17 @@ typedef struct {
> > unsigned char d;
> > } s;
> >
> > -unsigned char ub[N*2] =
> > {1,3,6,9,12,15,18,21,24,27,30,33,36,39,42,45,1,3,6,9,12,15,18,21,
> 24,27,30,33,36,39,42,45};
> > -unsigned char uc[N] = {1,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15};
> > +unsigned char ub[N*2];
> > +unsigned char uc[N];
> > +
> > +volatile int y = 0;
> > +unsigned char check_diff = 0;
> >
> > void
> > main1 (unsigned char x, unsigned char max_result, unsigned char
> > min_result, s *arr)
> > {
> > int i;
> > - unsigned char udiff = 2;
> > + unsigned char udiff = 0;
> >
> > Please don't change initial values to 0, we want to check that
everything
> > works fine for non-zeros as well.
> > There are several other occasions in the patch.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ira
> >
> >>
> >> Changelog:
> >> 2011-12-02 Michael Zolotukhin
> >>
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/slp-13.c: Increase array size, add initialization.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/slp-24.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/slp-3.c: Likewise and fix scans.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/slp-34.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/slp-4.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/slp-cond-2.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/slp-multitypes-11.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-1.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-10.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-105.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-112.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-15.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-2.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-31.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-32.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-33.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-34.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-35.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-36.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-6.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-73.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-74.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-75.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-76.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-80.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-85.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-89.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-97.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-98.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-all.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-double-reduc-6.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-iv-8.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-iv-8a.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-1.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-1a.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-1b.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-2.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-2a.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-2c.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-3.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-3a.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-4a.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-4b.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-4c.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-4d.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-4m.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-fir-lb.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-fir.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-over-widen-1.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-over-widen-2.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-over-widen-3.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-over-widen-4.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-reduc-1char.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-reduc-2char.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-reduc-pattern-1b.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-reduc-pattern-1c.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-reduc-pattern-2b.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-shift-2.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-strided-a-u8-i8-gap2.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-strided-a-u8-i8-gap7.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-strided-u8-i8-gap2.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-strided-u8-i8-gap4.c: Ditto.
> >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-strided-u8-i8-gap7.c: Ditto.
> >>
> >> --
> >> ---
> >> Best regards,
> >> Michael V. Zolotukhin,
> >> Software Engineer
> >> Intel Corporation.
> >> [attachment "vect_tests.patch" deleted by Ira Rosen/Haifa/IBM]
> >
>
>
>
> --
> ---
> Best regards,
> Michael V. Zolotukhin,
> Software Engineer
> Intel Corporation.
> [attachment "vect_tests-2.patch" deleted by Ira Rosen/Haifa/IBM]
Re: [Patch] Increase array sizes in vect-tests to enable 256-bit vectorization
> > Shouldn't we add a variant for each testcase so that we still > excercise both 128-bit and 256-bit vectorization paths? These tests are still good to test 128-bit vectorization, the changes was made just to make sure that 256-bit vectorization is possible on the tests. Actually, It's just first step in enabling these tests for 256 bits - for now many of them are failing if '-mavx' or '-mavx2' is specified (mostly due to different diagnostics messages produced by vectorizer), but with original (small) sizes of arrays we couldn't even check that. When they are enabled, it'll be possible to use them for testing both 128- and 256- bit vectorization. Michael 2011/12/2 Richard Guenther : > 2011/12/2 Michael Zolotukhin : >> Hi, >> >> This patch increases array sizes in tests from vect.exp suite, thus >> enabling 256-bit vectorization where it's available. >> >> Ok for trunk? > > Shouldn't we add a variant for each testcase so that we still > excercise both 128-bit and 256-bit vectorization paths? > >> Changelog: >> 2011-12-02 Michael Zolotukhin >> >> * gcc.dg/vect/slp-13.c: Increase array size, add initialization. >> * gcc.dg/vect/slp-24.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/slp-3.c: Likewise and fix scans. >> * gcc.dg/vect/slp-34.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/slp-4.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/slp-cond-2.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/slp-multitypes-11.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-1.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-10.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-105.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-112.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-15.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-2.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-31.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-32.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-33.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-34.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-35.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-36.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-6.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-73.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-74.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-75.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-76.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-80.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-85.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-89.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-97.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-98.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-all.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-double-reduc-6.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-iv-8.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-iv-8a.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-1.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-1a.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-1b.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-2.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-2a.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-2c.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-3.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-3a.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-4a.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-4b.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-4c.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-4d.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-4m.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-fir-lb.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-fir.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-over-widen-1.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-over-widen-2.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-over-widen-3.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-over-widen-4.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-reduc-1char.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-reduc-2char.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-reduc-pattern-1b.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-reduc-pattern-1c.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-reduc-pattern-2b.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-shift-2.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-strided-a-u8-i8-gap2.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-strided-a-u8-i8-gap7.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-strided-u8-i8-gap2.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-strided-u8-i8-gap4.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.dg/vect/vect-strided-u8-i8-gap7.c: Ditto. >> >> -- >> --- >> Best regards, >> Michael V. Zolotukhin, >> Software Engineer >> Intel Corporation.
Re: [Patch] Increase array sizes in vect-tests to enable 256-bit vectorization
gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org wrote on 02/12/2011 06:23:25 PM:
> Hi,
>
> This patch increases array sizes in tests from vect.exp suite, thus
> enabling 256-bit vectorization where it's available.
>
> Ok for trunk?
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/slp-24.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/slp-24.c
...
@@ -13,14 +12,17 @@ typedef struct {
unsigned char d;
} s;
-unsigned char ub[N*2] =
{1,3,6,9,12,15,18,21,24,27,30,33,36,39,42,45,1,3,6,9,12,15,18,21,24,27,30,33,36,39,42,45};
-unsigned char uc[N] = {1,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15};
+unsigned char ub[N*2];
+unsigned char uc[N];
+
+volatile int y = 0;
+unsigned char check_diff = 0;
void
main1 (unsigned char x, unsigned char max_result, unsigned char
min_result, s *arr)
{
int i;
- unsigned char udiff = 2;
+ unsigned char udiff = 0;
Please don't change initial values to 0, we want to check that everything
works fine for non-zeros as well.
There are several other occasions in the patch.
Thanks,
Ira
>
> Changelog:
> 2011-12-02 Michael Zolotukhin
>
>* gcc.dg/vect/slp-13.c: Increase array size, add initialization.
>* gcc.dg/vect/slp-24.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/slp-3.c: Likewise and fix scans.
>* gcc.dg/vect/slp-34.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/slp-4.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/slp-cond-2.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/slp-multitypes-11.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-1.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-10.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-105.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-112.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-15.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-2.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-31.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-32.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-33.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-34.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-35.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-36.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-6.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-73.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-74.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-75.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-76.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-80.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-85.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-89.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-97.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-98.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-all.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-double-reduc-6.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-iv-8.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-iv-8a.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-1.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-1a.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-1b.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-2.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-2a.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-2c.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-3.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-3a.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-4a.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-4b.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-4c.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-4d.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-4m.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-fir-lb.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-fir.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-over-widen-1.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-over-widen-2.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-over-widen-3.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-over-widen-4.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-reduc-1char.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-reduc-2char.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-reduc-pattern-1b.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-reduc-pattern-1c.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-reduc-pattern-2b.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-shift-2.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-strided-a-u8-i8-gap2.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-strided-a-u8-i8-gap7.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-strided-u8-i8-gap2.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-strided-u8-i8-gap4.c: Ditto.
>* gcc.dg/vect/vect-strided-u8-i8-gap7.c: Ditto.
>
> --
> ---
> Best regards,
> Michael V. Zolotukhin,
> Software Engineer
> Intel Corporation.
> [attachment "vect_tests.patch" deleted by Ira Rosen/Haifa/IBM]
Re: [Patch] Increase array sizes in vect-tests to enable 256-bit vectorization
2011/12/2 Michael Zolotukhin : > Hi, > > This patch increases array sizes in tests from vect.exp suite, thus > enabling 256-bit vectorization where it's available. > > Ok for trunk? Shouldn't we add a variant for each testcase so that we still excercise both 128-bit and 256-bit vectorization paths? > Changelog: > 2011-12-02 Michael Zolotukhin > > * gcc.dg/vect/slp-13.c: Increase array size, add initialization. > * gcc.dg/vect/slp-24.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/slp-3.c: Likewise and fix scans. > * gcc.dg/vect/slp-34.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/slp-4.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/slp-cond-2.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/slp-multitypes-11.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-1.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-10.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-105.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-112.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-15.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-2.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-31.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-32.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-33.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-34.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-35.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-36.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-6.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-73.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-74.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-75.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-76.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-80.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-85.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-89.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-97.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-98.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-all.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-double-reduc-6.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-iv-8.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-iv-8a.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-1.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-1a.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-1b.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-2.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-2a.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-2c.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-3.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-3a.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-4a.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-4b.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-4c.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-4d.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-4m.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-fir-lb.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-outer-fir.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-over-widen-1.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-over-widen-2.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-over-widen-3.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-over-widen-4.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-reduc-1char.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-reduc-2char.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-reduc-pattern-1b.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-reduc-pattern-1c.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-reduc-pattern-2b.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-shift-2.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-strided-a-u8-i8-gap2.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-strided-a-u8-i8-gap7.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-strided-u8-i8-gap2.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-strided-u8-i8-gap4.c: Ditto. > * gcc.dg/vect/vect-strided-u8-i8-gap7.c: Ditto. > > -- > --- > Best regards, > Michael V. Zolotukhin, > Software Engineer > Intel Corporation.
