Re: New GCC options for loop vectorization
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> Thanks. I modified the patch so that the max allowed peel iterations
> can be specified via a parameter. Testing on going. Ok for trunk ?
+DEFPARAM(PARAM_VECT_MAX_PEELING_FOR_ALIGNMENT,
+ "vect-max-peeling-for-alignment",
+ "Max number of loop peels to enhancement alignment of data
references in a loop",
+ -1, 0, 0)
I believe this doesn't allow --param vect-max-peeling-for-alignment=-1 as you
specify 0 as the minimum.
So, ok with changing minimum and maxmum to -1. (double check that this works)
Thanks,
Richard.
> David
>
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 4:31 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Xinliang David Li
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Xinliang David Li
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Xinliang David Li
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Xinliang David Li
wrote:
> Currently -ftree-vectorize turns on both loop and slp vectorizations,
> but there is no simple way to turn on loop vectorization alone. The
> logic for default O3 setting is also complicated.
>
> In this patch, two new options are introduced:
>
> 1) -ftree-loop-vectorize
>
> This option is used to turn on loop vectorization only. option
> -ftree-slp-vectorize also becomes a first class citizen, and no funny
> business of Init(2) is needed. With this change, -ftree-vectorize
> becomes a simple alias to -ftree-loop-vectorize +
> -ftree-slp-vectorize.
>
> For instance, to turn on only slp vectorize at O3, the old way is:
>
> -O3 -fno-tree-vectorize -ftree-slp-vectorize
>
> With the new change it becomes:
>
> -O3 -fno-loop-vectorize
>
>
> To turn on only loop vectorize at O2, the old way is
>
> -O2 -ftree-vectorize -fno-slp-vectorize
>
> The new way is
>
> -O2 -ftree-loop-vectorize
>
>
>
> 2) -ftree-vect-loop-peeling
>
> This option is used to turn on/off loop peeling for alignment. In the
> long run, this should be folded into the cheap cost model proposed by
> Richard. This option is also useful in scenarios where peeling can
> introduce runtime problems:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-12/msg00390.html which happens to be
> common in practice.
>
>
>
> Patch attached. Compiler boostrapped. Ok after testing?
I'd like you to split 1) and 2), mainly because I agree on 1) but not
on 2).
>>>
>>> Ok. Can you also comment on 2) ?
>>
>> I think we want to decide how granular we want to control the vectorizer
>> and using which mechanism. My cost-model re-org makes
>> ftree-vect-loop-version a no-op (basically removes it), so 2) looks like
>> a step backwards in this context.
>
> Using cost model to do a coarse grain control/configuration is
> certainly something we want, but having a fine grain control is still
> useful.
>
>>
>> So, can you summarize what pieces (including versioning) of the
>> vectorizer
>> you'd want to be able to disable separately?
>
> Loop peeling seems to be the main one. There is also a correctness
> issue related. For instance, the following code is common in practice,
> but loop peeling wrongly assumes initial base-alignment and generates
> aligned mov instruction after peeling, leading to SEGV. Peeling is
> not something we can blindly turned on -- even when it is on, there
> should be a way to turn it off explicitly:
>
> char a[1];
>
> void foo(int n)
> {
> int* b = (int*)(a+n);
> int i = 0;
> for (; i < 1000; ++i)
> b[i] = 1;
> }
>
> int main(int argn, char** argv)
> {
> foo(argn);
> }
But that's just a bug that should be fixed (looking into it).
>> Just disabling peeling for
>> alignment may get you into the versioning for alignment path (and thus
>> an unvectorized loop at runtime).
>
> This is not true for target supporting mis-aligned access. I have not
> seen a case where alignment driver loop version happens on x86.
>
>>Also it's know that the alignment peeling
>> code needs some serious TLC (it's outcome depends on the order of DRs,
>> the cost model it uses leaves to be desired as we cannot distinguish
>> between unaligned load and store costs).
>
> Yet another reason to turn it off as it
Re: New GCC options for loop vectorization
Thanks. I modified the patch so that the max allowed peel iterations
can be specified via a parameter. Testing on going. Ok for trunk ?
David
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 4:31 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Xinliang David Li
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Xinliang David Li
>>> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Xinliang David Li
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Xinliang David Li
>>> wrote:
Currently -ftree-vectorize turns on both loop and slp vectorizations,
but there is no simple way to turn on loop vectorization alone. The
logic for default O3 setting is also complicated.
In this patch, two new options are introduced:
1) -ftree-loop-vectorize
This option is used to turn on loop vectorization only. option
-ftree-slp-vectorize also becomes a first class citizen, and no funny
business of Init(2) is needed. With this change, -ftree-vectorize
becomes a simple alias to -ftree-loop-vectorize +
-ftree-slp-vectorize.
For instance, to turn on only slp vectorize at O3, the old way is:
-O3 -fno-tree-vectorize -ftree-slp-vectorize
With the new change it becomes:
-O3 -fno-loop-vectorize
To turn on only loop vectorize at O2, the old way is
-O2 -ftree-vectorize -fno-slp-vectorize
The new way is
-O2 -ftree-loop-vectorize
2) -ftree-vect-loop-peeling
This option is used to turn on/off loop peeling for alignment. In the
long run, this should be folded into the cheap cost model proposed by
Richard. This option is also useful in scenarios where peeling can
introduce runtime problems:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-12/msg00390.html which happens to be
common in practice.
Patch attached. Compiler boostrapped. Ok after testing?
>>>
>>> I'd like you to split 1) and 2), mainly because I agree on 1) but not
>>> on 2).
>>
>> Ok. Can you also comment on 2) ?
>
> I think we want to decide how granular we want to control the vectorizer
> and using which mechanism. My cost-model re-org makes
> ftree-vect-loop-version a no-op (basically removes it), so 2) looks like
> a step backwards in this context.
Using cost model to do a coarse grain control/configuration is
certainly something we want, but having a fine grain control is still
useful.
>
> So, can you summarize what pieces (including versioning) of the vectorizer
> you'd want to be able to disable separately?
Loop peeling seems to be the main one. There is also a correctness
issue related. For instance, the following code is common in practice,
but loop peeling wrongly assumes initial base-alignment and generates
aligned mov instruction after peeling, leading to SEGV. Peeling is
not something we can blindly turned on -- even when it is on, there
should be a way to turn it off explicitly:
char a[1];
void foo(int n)
{
int* b = (int*)(a+n);
int i = 0;
for (; i < 1000; ++i)
b[i] = 1;
}
int main(int argn, char** argv)
{
foo(argn);
}
>>>
>>> But that's just a bug that should be fixed (looking into it).
>>>
> Just disabling peeling for
> alignment may get you into the versioning for alignment path (and thus
> an unvectorized loop at runtime).
This is not true for target supporting mis-aligned access. I have not
seen a case where alignment driver loop version happens on x86.
>Also it's know that the alignment peeling
> code needs some serious TLC (it's outcome depends on the order of DRs,
> the cost model it uses leaves to be desired as we cannot distinguish
> between unaligned load and store costs).
Yet another reason to turn it off as it is not effective anyways?
>>>
>>> As said I'll disable all remains of -ftree-vect-loop-version with the cost
>>> model
>>> patch because it wasn't guarding versioning for aliasing but only versioning
>>> for alignment.
>>>
>>> We have to be consistent here - if we add a way to disable peeling for
>>> alignment then we certainly don't want to remove the ability to disable
>>> versioning for alignment, no?
>>
>> We already have the ability to turn off versioning -- via --param. It
>> is a more natural way to fine tune a pass instead of introducing a -f
>> option. For this reason, your planned depr
Re: New GCC options for loop vectorization
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Xinliang David Li
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Xinliang David Li
wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Xinliang David Li
>> wrote:
>>> Currently -ftree-vectorize turns on both loop and slp vectorizations,
>>> but there is no simple way to turn on loop vectorization alone. The
>>> logic for default O3 setting is also complicated.
>>>
>>> In this patch, two new options are introduced:
>>>
>>> 1) -ftree-loop-vectorize
>>>
>>> This option is used to turn on loop vectorization only. option
>>> -ftree-slp-vectorize also becomes a first class citizen, and no funny
>>> business of Init(2) is needed. With this change, -ftree-vectorize
>>> becomes a simple alias to -ftree-loop-vectorize +
>>> -ftree-slp-vectorize.
>>>
>>> For instance, to turn on only slp vectorize at O3, the old way is:
>>>
>>> -O3 -fno-tree-vectorize -ftree-slp-vectorize
>>>
>>> With the new change it becomes:
>>>
>>> -O3 -fno-loop-vectorize
>>>
>>>
>>> To turn on only loop vectorize at O2, the old way is
>>>
>>> -O2 -ftree-vectorize -fno-slp-vectorize
>>>
>>> The new way is
>>>
>>> -O2 -ftree-loop-vectorize
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2) -ftree-vect-loop-peeling
>>>
>>> This option is used to turn on/off loop peeling for alignment. In the
>>> long run, this should be folded into the cheap cost model proposed by
>>> Richard. This option is also useful in scenarios where peeling can
>>> introduce runtime problems:
>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-12/msg00390.html which happens to be
>>> common in practice.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Patch attached. Compiler boostrapped. Ok after testing?
>>
>> I'd like you to split 1) and 2), mainly because I agree on 1) but not on
>> 2).
>
> Ok. Can you also comment on 2) ?
I think we want to decide how granular we want to control the vectorizer
and using which mechanism. My cost-model re-org makes
ftree-vect-loop-version a no-op (basically removes it), so 2) looks like
a step backwards in this context.
>>>
>>> Using cost model to do a coarse grain control/configuration is
>>> certainly something we want, but having a fine grain control is still
>>> useful.
>>>
So, can you summarize what pieces (including versioning) of the vectorizer
you'd want to be able to disable separately?
>>>
>>> Loop peeling seems to be the main one. There is also a correctness
>>> issue related. For instance, the following code is common in practice,
>>> but loop peeling wrongly assumes initial base-alignment and generates
>>> aligned mov instruction after peeling, leading to SEGV. Peeling is
>>> not something we can blindly turned on -- even when it is on, there
>>> should be a way to turn it off explicitly:
>>>
>>> char a[1];
>>>
>>> void foo(int n)
>>> {
>>> int* b = (int*)(a+n);
>>> int i = 0;
>>> for (; i < 1000; ++i)
>>> b[i] = 1;
>>> }
>>>
>>> int main(int argn, char** argv)
>>> {
>>> foo(argn);
>>> }
>>
>> But that's just a bug that should be fixed (looking into it).
>>
Just disabling peeling for
alignment may get you into the versioning for alignment path (and thus
an unvectorized loop at runtime).
>>>
>>> This is not true for target supporting mis-aligned access. I have not
>>> seen a case where alignment driver loop version happens on x86.
>>>
Also it's know that the alignment peeling
code needs some serious TLC (it's outcome depends on the order of DRs,
the cost model it uses leaves to be desired as we cannot distinguish
between unaligned load and store costs).
>>>
>>> Yet another reason to turn it off as it is not effective anyways?
>>
>> As said I'll disable all remains of -ftree-vect-loop-version with the cost
>> model
>> patch because it wasn't guarding versioning for aliasing but only versioning
>> for alignment.
>>
>> We have to be consistent here - if we add a way to disable peeling for
>> alignment then we certainly don't want to remove the ability to disable
>> versioning for alignment, no?
>
> We already have the ability to turn off versioning -- via --param. It
> is a more natural way to fine tune a pass instead of introducing a -f
> option. For this reason, your planned deprecation of the option is a
> good thing to do.
>
> For consistency, I think we should introduce a new parameter to turn
> on/off peeling. This can also be tied closely with the cost model
> change.
>
> The proposed patch attached. Does this one look ok?
I'd principally support adding a param but rather would for example make
it
Re: New GCC options for loop vectorization
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Xinliang David Li
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Xinliang David Li
>>> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Xinliang David Li
> wrote:
>> Currently -ftree-vectorize turns on both loop and slp vectorizations,
>> but there is no simple way to turn on loop vectorization alone. The
>> logic for default O3 setting is also complicated.
>>
>> In this patch, two new options are introduced:
>>
>> 1) -ftree-loop-vectorize
>>
>> This option is used to turn on loop vectorization only. option
>> -ftree-slp-vectorize also becomes a first class citizen, and no funny
>> business of Init(2) is needed. With this change, -ftree-vectorize
>> becomes a simple alias to -ftree-loop-vectorize +
>> -ftree-slp-vectorize.
>>
>> For instance, to turn on only slp vectorize at O3, the old way is:
>>
>> -O3 -fno-tree-vectorize -ftree-slp-vectorize
>>
>> With the new change it becomes:
>>
>> -O3 -fno-loop-vectorize
>>
>>
>> To turn on only loop vectorize at O2, the old way is
>>
>> -O2 -ftree-vectorize -fno-slp-vectorize
>>
>> The new way is
>>
>> -O2 -ftree-loop-vectorize
>>
>>
>>
>> 2) -ftree-vect-loop-peeling
>>
>> This option is used to turn on/off loop peeling for alignment. In the
>> long run, this should be folded into the cheap cost model proposed by
>> Richard. This option is also useful in scenarios where peeling can
>> introduce runtime problems:
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-12/msg00390.html which happens to be
>> common in practice.
>>
>>
>>
>> Patch attached. Compiler boostrapped. Ok after testing?
>
> I'd like you to split 1) and 2), mainly because I agree on 1) but not on
> 2).
Ok. Can you also comment on 2) ?
>>>
>>> I think we want to decide how granular we want to control the vectorizer
>>> and using which mechanism. My cost-model re-org makes
>>> ftree-vect-loop-version a no-op (basically removes it), so 2) looks like
>>> a step backwards in this context.
>>
>> Using cost model to do a coarse grain control/configuration is
>> certainly something we want, but having a fine grain control is still
>> useful.
>>
>>>
>>> So, can you summarize what pieces (including versioning) of the vectorizer
>>> you'd want to be able to disable separately?
>>
>> Loop peeling seems to be the main one. There is also a correctness
>> issue related. For instance, the following code is common in practice,
>> but loop peeling wrongly assumes initial base-alignment and generates
>> aligned mov instruction after peeling, leading to SEGV. Peeling is
>> not something we can blindly turned on -- even when it is on, there
>> should be a way to turn it off explicitly:
>>
>> char a[1];
>>
>> void foo(int n)
>> {
>> int* b = (int*)(a+n);
>> int i = 0;
>> for (; i < 1000; ++i)
>> b[i] = 1;
>> }
>>
>> int main(int argn, char** argv)
>> {
>> foo(argn);
>> }
>
> But that's just a bug that should be fixed (looking into it).
>
>>> Just disabling peeling for
>>> alignment may get you into the versioning for alignment path (and thus
>>> an unvectorized loop at runtime).
>>
>> This is not true for target supporting mis-aligned access. I have not
>> seen a case where alignment driver loop version happens on x86.
>>
>>>Also it's know that the alignment peeling
>>> code needs some serious TLC (it's outcome depends on the order of DRs,
>>> the cost model it uses leaves to be desired as we cannot distinguish
>>> between unaligned load and store costs).
>>
>> Yet another reason to turn it off as it is not effective anyways?
>
> As said I'll disable all remains of -ftree-vect-loop-version with the cost
> model
> patch because it wasn't guarding versioning for aliasing but only versioning
> for alignment.
>
> We have to be consistent here - if we add a way to disable peeling for
> alignment then we certainly don't want to remove the ability to disable
> versioning for alignment, no?
We already have the ability to turn off versioning -- via --param. It
is a more natural way to fine tune a pass instead of introducing a -f
option. For this reason, your planned deprecation of the option is a
good thing to do.
For consistency, I think we should introduce a new parameter to turn
on/off peeling. This can also be tied closely with the cost model
change.
The proposed patch attached. Does this one look ok?
thanks,
David
>
> Richard.
>
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> David
>>
>>>
>>> Richard.
>>>
>
> I've stopped a quick try doing 1) myself because
>
> @@ -1691,6 +1695,12 @@ common_handle_option (struct gcc_options
> opts->x_flag_ipa_reference = false;
>
Re: New GCC options for loop vectorization
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 08:37:57AM -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> >> char a[1];
> >>
> >> void foo(int n)
> >> {
> >> int* b = (int*)(a+n);
> >> int i = 0;
> >> for (; i < 1000; ++i)
> >> b[i] = 1;
> >> }
> >>
> >> int main(int argn, char** argv)
> >> {
> >> foo(argn);
> >> }
> >
> > But that's just a bug that should be fixed (looking into it).
>
> This kind of code is not uncommon for certain applications (e.g, group
> varint decoding). Besides, the code like this may be built with
That is irrelevant to the fact that it is invalid.
> -fno-strict-aliasing.
It isn't invalid because of aliasing violations, but because of unaligned
access without saying that it is unaligned (say accessing through
aligned(1) type, or packed struct or similar, or doing memcpy).
On various architectures unaligned accesses don't cause faults, so it
may appear to work, and even on i?86/x86_64 often appears to work, as
long as you aren't trying to vectorize code (which doesn't change anything
on the fact that it is undefined behavior).
Jakub
Re: New GCC options for loop vectorization
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 08:37:57AM -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> >> char a[1];
>> >>
>> >> void foo(int n)
>> >> {
>> >> int* b = (int*)(a+n);
>> >> int i = 0;
>> >> for (; i < 1000; ++i)
>> >> b[i] = 1;
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >> int main(int argn, char** argv)
>> >> {
>> >> foo(argn);
>> >> }
>> >
>> > But that's just a bug that should be fixed (looking into it).
>>
>> This kind of code is not uncommon for certain applications (e.g, group
>> varint decoding). Besides, the code like this may be built with
>
> That is irrelevant to the fact that it is invalid.
>
>> -fno-strict-aliasing.
>
> It isn't invalid because of aliasing violations, but because of unaligned
> access without saying that it is unaligned (say accessing through
> aligned(1) type, or packed struct or similar, or doing memcpy).
> On various architectures unaligned accesses don't cause faults, so it
> may appear to work, and even on i?86/x86_64 often appears to work, as
> long as you aren't trying to vectorize code (which doesn't change anything
> on the fact that it is undefined behavior).
ok, undefined behavior it is. By the way, ICC does loop versioning on
the case and therefore has no problem. Clang/LLVM vectorizes it with
neither peeling nor versioning, and it works fine to. For legacy code
like this, GCC is less tolerant.
thanks,
David
>
> Jakub
Re: New GCC options for loop vectorization
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Xinliang David Li
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Xinliang David Li
>>> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Xinliang David Li
> wrote:
>> Currently -ftree-vectorize turns on both loop and slp vectorizations,
>> but there is no simple way to turn on loop vectorization alone. The
>> logic for default O3 setting is also complicated.
>>
>> In this patch, two new options are introduced:
>>
>> 1) -ftree-loop-vectorize
>>
>> This option is used to turn on loop vectorization only. option
>> -ftree-slp-vectorize also becomes a first class citizen, and no funny
>> business of Init(2) is needed. With this change, -ftree-vectorize
>> becomes a simple alias to -ftree-loop-vectorize +
>> -ftree-slp-vectorize.
>>
>> For instance, to turn on only slp vectorize at O3, the old way is:
>>
>> -O3 -fno-tree-vectorize -ftree-slp-vectorize
>>
>> With the new change it becomes:
>>
>> -O3 -fno-loop-vectorize
>>
>>
>> To turn on only loop vectorize at O2, the old way is
>>
>> -O2 -ftree-vectorize -fno-slp-vectorize
>>
>> The new way is
>>
>> -O2 -ftree-loop-vectorize
>>
>>
>>
>> 2) -ftree-vect-loop-peeling
>>
>> This option is used to turn on/off loop peeling for alignment. In the
>> long run, this should be folded into the cheap cost model proposed by
>> Richard. This option is also useful in scenarios where peeling can
>> introduce runtime problems:
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-12/msg00390.html which happens to be
>> common in practice.
>>
>>
>>
>> Patch attached. Compiler boostrapped. Ok after testing?
>
> I'd like you to split 1) and 2), mainly because I agree on 1) but not on
> 2).
Ok. Can you also comment on 2) ?
>>>
>>> I think we want to decide how granular we want to control the vectorizer
>>> and using which mechanism. My cost-model re-org makes
>>> ftree-vect-loop-version a no-op (basically removes it), so 2) looks like
>>> a step backwards in this context.
>>
>> Using cost model to do a coarse grain control/configuration is
>> certainly something we want, but having a fine grain control is still
>> useful.
>>
>>>
>>> So, can you summarize what pieces (including versioning) of the vectorizer
>>> you'd want to be able to disable separately?
>>
>> Loop peeling seems to be the main one. There is also a correctness
>> issue related. For instance, the following code is common in practice,
>> but loop peeling wrongly assumes initial base-alignment and generates
>> aligned mov instruction after peeling, leading to SEGV. Peeling is
>> not something we can blindly turned on -- even when it is on, there
>> should be a way to turn it off explicitly:
>>
>> char a[1];
>>
>> void foo(int n)
>> {
>> int* b = (int*)(a+n);
>> int i = 0;
>> for (; i < 1000; ++i)
>> b[i] = 1;
>> }
>>
>> int main(int argn, char** argv)
>> {
>> foo(argn);
>> }
>
> But that's just a bug that should be fixed (looking into it).
This kind of code is not uncommon for certain applications (e.g, group
varint decoding). Besides, the code like this may be built with
-fno-strict-aliasing.
>
>>> Just disabling peeling for
>>> alignment may get you into the versioning for alignment path (and thus
>>> an unvectorized loop at runtime).
>>
>> This is not true for target supporting mis-aligned access. I have not
>> seen a case where alignment driver loop version happens on x86.
>>
>>>Also it's know that the alignment peeling
>>> code needs some serious TLC (it's outcome depends on the order of DRs,
>>> the cost model it uses leaves to be desired as we cannot distinguish
>>> between unaligned load and store costs).
>>
>> Yet another reason to turn it off as it is not effective anyways?
>
> As said I'll disable all remains of -ftree-vect-loop-version with the cost
> model
> patch because it wasn't guarding versioning for aliasing but only versioning
> for alignment.
>
> We have to be consistent here - if we add a way to disable peeling for
> alignment then we certainly don't want to remove the ability to disable
> versioning for alignment, no?
yes, for consistency, the version control flag may also be useful to be kept.
David
>
> Richard.
>
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> David
>>
>>>
>>> Richard.
>>>
>
> I've stopped a quick try doing 1) myself because
>
> @@ -1691,6 +1695,12 @@ common_handle_option (struct gcc_options
> opts->x_flag_ipa_reference = false;
>break;
>
> +case OPT_ftree_vectorize:
> + if (!opts_set->x_flag_tree_loop_vectorize)
> + opts->x_flag_tree_loop_vectorize = value;
> + if (!opts_set->x_flag_
Re: New GCC options for loop vectorization
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Xinliang David Li
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Xinliang David Li
>>> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Xinliang David Li
> wrote:
>> Currently -ftree-vectorize turns on both loop and slp vectorizations,
>> but there is no simple way to turn on loop vectorization alone. The
>> logic for default O3 setting is also complicated.
>>
>> In this patch, two new options are introduced:
>>
>> 1) -ftree-loop-vectorize
>>
>> This option is used to turn on loop vectorization only. option
>> -ftree-slp-vectorize also becomes a first class citizen, and no funny
>> business of Init(2) is needed. With this change, -ftree-vectorize
>> becomes a simple alias to -ftree-loop-vectorize +
>> -ftree-slp-vectorize.
>>
>> For instance, to turn on only slp vectorize at O3, the old way is:
>>
>> -O3 -fno-tree-vectorize -ftree-slp-vectorize
>>
>> With the new change it becomes:
>>
>> -O3 -fno-loop-vectorize
>>
>>
>> To turn on only loop vectorize at O2, the old way is
>>
>> -O2 -ftree-vectorize -fno-slp-vectorize
>>
>> The new way is
>>
>> -O2 -ftree-loop-vectorize
>>
>>
>>
>> 2) -ftree-vect-loop-peeling
>>
>> This option is used to turn on/off loop peeling for alignment. In the
>> long run, this should be folded into the cheap cost model proposed by
>> Richard. This option is also useful in scenarios where peeling can
>> introduce runtime problems:
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-12/msg00390.html which happens to be
>> common in practice.
>>
>>
>>
>> Patch attached. Compiler boostrapped. Ok after testing?
>
> I'd like you to split 1) and 2), mainly because I agree on 1) but not on
> 2).
Ok. Can you also comment on 2) ?
>>>
>>> I think we want to decide how granular we want to control the vectorizer
>>> and using which mechanism. My cost-model re-org makes
>>> ftree-vect-loop-version a no-op (basically removes it), so 2) looks like
>>> a step backwards in this context.
>>
>> Using cost model to do a coarse grain control/configuration is
>> certainly something we want, but having a fine grain control is still
>> useful.
>>
>>>
>>> So, can you summarize what pieces (including versioning) of the vectorizer
>>> you'd want to be able to disable separately?
>>
>> Loop peeling seems to be the main one. There is also a correctness
>> issue related. For instance, the following code is common in practice,
>> but loop peeling wrongly assumes initial base-alignment and generates
>> aligned mov instruction after peeling, leading to SEGV. Peeling is
>> not something we can blindly turned on -- even when it is on, there
>> should be a way to turn it off explicitly:
>>
>> char a[1];
>>
>> void foo(int n)
>> {
>> int* b = (int*)(a+n);
>> int i = 0;
>> for (; i < 1000; ++i)
>> b[i] = 1;
>> }
>>
>> int main(int argn, char** argv)
>> {
>> foo(argn);
>> }
>
> But that's just a bug that should be fixed (looking into it).
Bug in the testcase. b[i] asserts that b is aligned to 'int', so this invokes
undefined behavior if peeling cannot reach an alignment of 16.
Richard.
Re: New GCC options for loop vectorization
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Xinliang David Li
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Xinliang David Li
wrote:
> Currently -ftree-vectorize turns on both loop and slp vectorizations,
> but there is no simple way to turn on loop vectorization alone. The
> logic for default O3 setting is also complicated.
>
> In this patch, two new options are introduced:
>
> 1) -ftree-loop-vectorize
>
> This option is used to turn on loop vectorization only. option
> -ftree-slp-vectorize also becomes a first class citizen, and no funny
> business of Init(2) is needed. With this change, -ftree-vectorize
> becomes a simple alias to -ftree-loop-vectorize +
> -ftree-slp-vectorize.
>
> For instance, to turn on only slp vectorize at O3, the old way is:
>
> -O3 -fno-tree-vectorize -ftree-slp-vectorize
>
> With the new change it becomes:
>
> -O3 -fno-loop-vectorize
>
>
> To turn on only loop vectorize at O2, the old way is
>
> -O2 -ftree-vectorize -fno-slp-vectorize
>
> The new way is
>
> -O2 -ftree-loop-vectorize
>
>
>
> 2) -ftree-vect-loop-peeling
>
> This option is used to turn on/off loop peeling for alignment. In the
> long run, this should be folded into the cheap cost model proposed by
> Richard. This option is also useful in scenarios where peeling can
> introduce runtime problems:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-12/msg00390.html which happens to be
> common in practice.
>
>
>
> Patch attached. Compiler boostrapped. Ok after testing?
I'd like you to split 1) and 2), mainly because I agree on 1) but not on
2).
>>>
>>> Ok. Can you also comment on 2) ?
>>
>> I think we want to decide how granular we want to control the vectorizer
>> and using which mechanism. My cost-model re-org makes
>> ftree-vect-loop-version a no-op (basically removes it), so 2) looks like
>> a step backwards in this context.
>
> Using cost model to do a coarse grain control/configuration is
> certainly something we want, but having a fine grain control is still
> useful.
>
>>
>> So, can you summarize what pieces (including versioning) of the vectorizer
>> you'd want to be able to disable separately?
>
> Loop peeling seems to be the main one. There is also a correctness
> issue related. For instance, the following code is common in practice,
> but loop peeling wrongly assumes initial base-alignment and generates
> aligned mov instruction after peeling, leading to SEGV. Peeling is
> not something we can blindly turned on -- even when it is on, there
> should be a way to turn it off explicitly:
>
> char a[1];
>
> void foo(int n)
> {
> int* b = (int*)(a+n);
> int i = 0;
> for (; i < 1000; ++i)
> b[i] = 1;
> }
>
> int main(int argn, char** argv)
> {
> foo(argn);
> }
But that's just a bug that should be fixed (looking into it).
>> Just disabling peeling for
>> alignment may get you into the versioning for alignment path (and thus
>> an unvectorized loop at runtime).
>
> This is not true for target supporting mis-aligned access. I have not
> seen a case where alignment driver loop version happens on x86.
>
>>Also it's know that the alignment peeling
>> code needs some serious TLC (it's outcome depends on the order of DRs,
>> the cost model it uses leaves to be desired as we cannot distinguish
>> between unaligned load and store costs).
>
> Yet another reason to turn it off as it is not effective anyways?
As said I'll disable all remains of -ftree-vect-loop-version with the cost model
patch because it wasn't guarding versioning for aliasing but only versioning
for alignment.
We have to be consistent here - if we add a way to disable peeling for
alignment then we certainly don't want to remove the ability to disable
versioning for alignment, no?
Richard.
>
> thanks,
>
> David
>
>>
>> Richard.
>>
I've stopped a quick try doing 1) myself because
@@ -1691,6 +1695,12 @@ common_handle_option (struct gcc_options
opts->x_flag_ipa_reference = false;
break;
+case OPT_ftree_vectorize:
+ if (!opts_set->x_flag_tree_loop_vectorize)
+ opts->x_flag_tree_loop_vectorize = value;
+ if (!opts_set->x_flag_tree_slp_vectorize)
+ opts->x_flag_tree_slp_vectorize = value;
+ break;
doesn't look obviously correct. Does that handle
-ftree-vectorize -fno-tree-loop-vectorize -ftree-vectorize
or
-ftree-loop-vectorize -fno-tree-vectorize
properly? Currently at least
-ftree-slp-vectorize -fno-tree-vectorize
doesn't "work".
>>>
>>>
>>> Right -- same is true for -fprofile-use opt
Re: New GCC options for loop vectorization
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Xinliang David Li
>>> wrote:
Currently -ftree-vectorize turns on both loop and slp vectorizations,
but there is no simple way to turn on loop vectorization alone. The
logic for default O3 setting is also complicated.
In this patch, two new options are introduced:
1) -ftree-loop-vectorize
This option is used to turn on loop vectorization only. option
-ftree-slp-vectorize also becomes a first class citizen, and no funny
business of Init(2) is needed. With this change, -ftree-vectorize
becomes a simple alias to -ftree-loop-vectorize +
-ftree-slp-vectorize.
For instance, to turn on only slp vectorize at O3, the old way is:
-O3 -fno-tree-vectorize -ftree-slp-vectorize
With the new change it becomes:
-O3 -fno-loop-vectorize
To turn on only loop vectorize at O2, the old way is
-O2 -ftree-vectorize -fno-slp-vectorize
The new way is
-O2 -ftree-loop-vectorize
2) -ftree-vect-loop-peeling
This option is used to turn on/off loop peeling for alignment. In the
long run, this should be folded into the cheap cost model proposed by
Richard. This option is also useful in scenarios where peeling can
introduce runtime problems:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-12/msg00390.html which happens to be
common in practice.
Patch attached. Compiler boostrapped. Ok after testing?
>>>
>>> I'd like you to split 1) and 2), mainly because I agree on 1) but not on 2).
>>
>> Ok. Can you also comment on 2) ?
>
> I think we want to decide how granular we want to control the vectorizer
> and using which mechanism. My cost-model re-org makes
> ftree-vect-loop-version a no-op (basically removes it), so 2) looks like
> a step backwards in this context.
Using cost model to do a coarse grain control/configuration is
certainly something we want, but having a fine grain control is still
useful.
>
> So, can you summarize what pieces (including versioning) of the vectorizer
> you'd want to be able to disable separately?
Loop peeling seems to be the main one. There is also a correctness
issue related. For instance, the following code is common in practice,
but loop peeling wrongly assumes initial base-alignment and generates
aligned mov instruction after peeling, leading to SEGV. Peeling is
not something we can blindly turned on -- even when it is on, there
should be a way to turn it off explicitly:
char a[1];
void foo(int n)
{
int* b = (int*)(a+n);
int i = 0;
for (; i < 1000; ++i)
b[i] = 1;
}
int main(int argn, char** argv)
{
foo(argn);
}
> Just disabling peeling for
> alignment may get you into the versioning for alignment path (and thus
> an unvectorized loop at runtime).
This is not true for target supporting mis-aligned access. I have not
seen a case where alignment driver loop version happens on x86.
>Also it's know that the alignment peeling
> code needs some serious TLC (it's outcome depends on the order of DRs,
> the cost model it uses leaves to be desired as we cannot distinguish
> between unaligned load and store costs).
Yet another reason to turn it off as it is not effective anyways?
thanks,
David
>
> Richard.
>
>>>
>>> I've stopped a quick try doing 1) myself because
>>>
>>> @@ -1691,6 +1695,12 @@ common_handle_option (struct gcc_options
>>> opts->x_flag_ipa_reference = false;
>>>break;
>>>
>>> +case OPT_ftree_vectorize:
>>> + if (!opts_set->x_flag_tree_loop_vectorize)
>>> + opts->x_flag_tree_loop_vectorize = value;
>>> + if (!opts_set->x_flag_tree_slp_vectorize)
>>> + opts->x_flag_tree_slp_vectorize = value;
>>> + break;
>>>
>>> doesn't look obviously correct. Does that handle
>>>
>>> -ftree-vectorize -fno-tree-loop-vectorize -ftree-vectorize
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> -ftree-loop-vectorize -fno-tree-vectorize
>>>
>>> properly? Currently at least
>>>
>>> -ftree-slp-vectorize -fno-tree-vectorize
>>>
>>> doesn't "work".
>>
>>
>> Right -- same is true for -fprofile-use option. FDO enables some
>> passes, but can not re-enable them if they are flipped off before.
>>
>>>
>>> That said, the option machinery doesn't handle an option being an alias
>>> for two other options, so it's mechanism to contract positives/negatives
>>> doesn't work here and the override hooks do not work reliably for
>>> repeated options.
>>>
>>> Or am I wrong here? Should we care at all? Joseph?
>>
>> We should probably just document the behavior. Even better, we should
>> deprecate the old option.
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> David
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Richard.
>>>
thanks,
David
Re: New GCC options for loop vectorization
I incorporated all the comments and committed the change (also fixed a
test failure with --help=optimizers).
thanks,
David
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:07 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> Updated patch implementing the logic that more specific option wins.
>>
>> Ok for trunk?
>
> @@ -2305,8 +2305,8 @@ omp_max_vf (void)
> {
>if (!optimize
>|| optimize_debug
> - || (!flag_tree_vectorize
> - && global_options_set.x_flag_tree_vectorize))
> + || (!flag_tree_loop_vectorize
> + && global_options_set.x_flag_tree_loop_vectorize))
> return 1;
>
> Not sure what is the intent here, but it looks like
> -fno-tree-vectorize will no longer disable this. So it would
> need to check (global_options_set.x_flag_tree_vectorize ||
> global_options_set.x_flag_tree_loop_vectorize)? Jakub?
>
>int vs = targetm.vectorize.autovectorize_vector_sizes ();
> @@ -5684,10 +5684,10 @@ expand_omp_simd (struct omp_region *regi
>loop->simduid = OMP_CLAUSE__SIMDUID__DECL (simduid);
>cfun->has_simduid_loops = true;
> }
> - /* If not -fno-tree-vectorize, hint that we want to vectorize
> + /* If not -fno-tree-loop-vectorize, hint that we want to vectorize
> the loop. */
> - if ((flag_tree_vectorize
> - || !global_options_set.x_flag_tree_vectorize)
> + if ((flag_tree_loop_vectorize
> + || !global_options_set.x_flag_tree_loop_vectorize)
>&& loop->safelen > 1)
> {
>loop->force_vect = true;
>
> similar.
>
> - if (!opts_set->x_flag_tree_vectorize)
> - opts->x_flag_tree_vectorize = value;
> + if (!opts_set->x_flag_tree_loop_vectorize)
> + opts->x_flag_tree_loop_vectorize = value;
> + if (!opts_set->x_flag_tree_slp_vectorize)
> + opts->x_flag_tree_slp_vectorize = value;
>
> similar - if I use -fprofile-use -fno-tree-vecotorize you override this
> choice.
> This case should be wrapped in if (!opts_set->x_flag_tree_vectorize)
>
> @item -ftree-vectorize
> @opindex ftree-vectorize
> +Perform vectorization on trees. This flag enables
> @option{-ftree-loop-vectorize}
> +and @option{-ftree-slp-vectorize} if neither option is explicitly specified.
>
> "if neither option is explicitely specified" doesn't correctly document
> -ftree-loop-vectorize -ftree-vectorize behavior, no? (-ftree-slp-vectorize
> is still enabled here)
>
> I'm not a native speaker so I cannot suggest a clearer wording here
> but maybe just say "if not explicitely specified".
>
> Ok with the -fprofile-use change I suggested and whatever resolution Jakub
> suggests and the doc adjustment.
>
> Thanks,
> Richard.
>
>> thanks,
>>
>> David
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Xinliang David Li
>> wrote:
>>> Ok -- then my updated patch is wrong then. The implementation in the
>>> first version matches the requirement.
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Joseph S. Myers
>>> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Sep 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
> @@ -1691,6 +1695,12 @@ common_handle_option (struct gcc_options
> opts->x_flag_ipa_reference = false;
>break;
>
> +case OPT_ftree_vectorize:
> + if (!opts_set->x_flag_tree_loop_vectorize)
> + opts->x_flag_tree_loop_vectorize = value;
> + if (!opts_set->x_flag_tree_slp_vectorize)
> + opts->x_flag_tree_slp_vectorize = value;
> + break;
>
> doesn't look obviously correct. Does that handle
It looks right to me. The general principle is that the more specific
option takes precedence over the less specific one, whatever the order on
the command line.
> -ftree-vectorize -fno-tree-loop-vectorize -ftree-vectorize
Should mean -ftree-slp-vectorize.
> -ftree-loop-vectorize -fno-tree-vectorize
Should mean -ftree-loop-vectorize.
> -ftree-slp-vectorize -fno-tree-vectorize
Should mean -ftree-slp-vectorize.
--
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com
Re: New GCC options for loop vectorization
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 12:07:37PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> > Updated patch implementing the logic that more specific option wins.
> >
> > Ok for trunk?
>
> @@ -2305,8 +2305,8 @@ omp_max_vf (void)
> {
>if (!optimize
>|| optimize_debug
> - || (!flag_tree_vectorize
> - && global_options_set.x_flag_tree_vectorize))
> + || (!flag_tree_loop_vectorize
> + && global_options_set.x_flag_tree_loop_vectorize))
> return 1;
>
> Not sure what is the intent here, but it looks like
> -fno-tree-vectorize will no longer disable this. So it would
> need to check (global_options_set.x_flag_tree_vectorize ||
> global_options_set.x_flag_tree_loop_vectorize)? Jakub?
The point of omp_max_vf is to allow vectorization of simd routines
in the source even without -O3/-Ofast/-ftree-vectorize, as long
as user hasn't requested no vectorization (-fno-tree-vectorize, or
-O0, -Og). So yes, you'd probably need to change this spot
to check for either global_options_set.x_flag_tree_vectorize
|| global_options_set.x_flag_tree_loop_vectorize, because either
of them meant explicit request to either vectorize or not vectorize loops.
If user has requested vectorization or non-vectorization of loops, then
simd loops just should follow those requests, it is only the default
if there was nothing explicit, which will for now be different between
normal and simd loops, normal loops won't be vectorized, simd loops will be,
because they were specially marked in the source and so it is probably
worthwhile to vectorize them.
Jakub
Re: New GCC options for loop vectorization
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote: > On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Richard Biener > wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Xinliang David Li >> wrote: >>> Currently -ftree-vectorize turns on both loop and slp vectorizations, >>> but there is no simple way to turn on loop vectorization alone. The >>> logic for default O3 setting is also complicated. >>> >>> In this patch, two new options are introduced: >>> >>> 1) -ftree-loop-vectorize >>> >>> This option is used to turn on loop vectorization only. option >>> -ftree-slp-vectorize also becomes a first class citizen, and no funny >>> business of Init(2) is needed. With this change, -ftree-vectorize >>> becomes a simple alias to -ftree-loop-vectorize + >>> -ftree-slp-vectorize. >>> >>> For instance, to turn on only slp vectorize at O3, the old way is: >>> >>> -O3 -fno-tree-vectorize -ftree-slp-vectorize >>> >>> With the new change it becomes: >>> >>> -O3 -fno-loop-vectorize >>> >>> >>> To turn on only loop vectorize at O2, the old way is >>> >>> -O2 -ftree-vectorize -fno-slp-vectorize >>> >>> The new way is >>> >>> -O2 -ftree-loop-vectorize >>> >>> >>> >>> 2) -ftree-vect-loop-peeling >>> >>> This option is used to turn on/off loop peeling for alignment. In the >>> long run, this should be folded into the cheap cost model proposed by >>> Richard. This option is also useful in scenarios where peeling can >>> introduce runtime problems: >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-12/msg00390.html which happens to be >>> common in practice. >>> >>> >>> >>> Patch attached. Compiler boostrapped. Ok after testing? >> >> I'd like you to split 1) and 2), mainly because I agree on 1) but not on 2). > > Ok. Can you also comment on 2) ? I think we want to decide how granular we want to control the vectorizer and using which mechanism. My cost-model re-org makes ftree-vect-loop-version a no-op (basically removes it), so 2) looks like a step backwards in this context. So, can you summarize what pieces (including versioning) of the vectorizer you'd want to be able to disable separately? Just disabling peeling for alignment may get you into the versioning for alignment path (and thus an unvectorized loop at runtime). Also it's know that the alignment peeling code needs some serious TLC (it's outcome depends on the order of DRs, the cost model it uses leaves to be desired as we cannot distinguish between unaligned load and store costs). Richard. >> >> I've stopped a quick try doing 1) myself because >> >> @@ -1691,6 +1695,12 @@ common_handle_option (struct gcc_options >> opts->x_flag_ipa_reference = false; >>break; >> >> +case OPT_ftree_vectorize: >> + if (!opts_set->x_flag_tree_loop_vectorize) >> + opts->x_flag_tree_loop_vectorize = value; >> + if (!opts_set->x_flag_tree_slp_vectorize) >> + opts->x_flag_tree_slp_vectorize = value; >> + break; >> >> doesn't look obviously correct. Does that handle >> >> -ftree-vectorize -fno-tree-loop-vectorize -ftree-vectorize >> >> or >> >> -ftree-loop-vectorize -fno-tree-vectorize >> >> properly? Currently at least >> >> -ftree-slp-vectorize -fno-tree-vectorize >> >> doesn't "work". > > > Right -- same is true for -fprofile-use option. FDO enables some > passes, but can not re-enable them if they are flipped off before. > >> >> That said, the option machinery doesn't handle an option being an alias >> for two other options, so it's mechanism to contract positives/negatives >> doesn't work here and the override hooks do not work reliably for >> repeated options. >> >> Or am I wrong here? Should we care at all? Joseph? > > We should probably just document the behavior. Even better, we should > deprecate the old option. > > thanks, > > David > >> >> Thanks, >> Richard. >> >>> >>> thanks, >>> >>> David
Re: New GCC options for loop vectorization
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> Updated patch implementing the logic that more specific option wins.
>
> Ok for trunk?
@@ -2305,8 +2305,8 @@ omp_max_vf (void)
{
if (!optimize
|| optimize_debug
- || (!flag_tree_vectorize
- && global_options_set.x_flag_tree_vectorize))
+ || (!flag_tree_loop_vectorize
+ && global_options_set.x_flag_tree_loop_vectorize))
return 1;
Not sure what is the intent here, but it looks like
-fno-tree-vectorize will no longer disable this. So it would
need to check (global_options_set.x_flag_tree_vectorize ||
global_options_set.x_flag_tree_loop_vectorize)? Jakub?
int vs = targetm.vectorize.autovectorize_vector_sizes ();
@@ -5684,10 +5684,10 @@ expand_omp_simd (struct omp_region *regi
loop->simduid = OMP_CLAUSE__SIMDUID__DECL (simduid);
cfun->has_simduid_loops = true;
}
- /* If not -fno-tree-vectorize, hint that we want to vectorize
+ /* If not -fno-tree-loop-vectorize, hint that we want to vectorize
the loop. */
- if ((flag_tree_vectorize
- || !global_options_set.x_flag_tree_vectorize)
+ if ((flag_tree_loop_vectorize
+ || !global_options_set.x_flag_tree_loop_vectorize)
&& loop->safelen > 1)
{
loop->force_vect = true;
similar.
- if (!opts_set->x_flag_tree_vectorize)
- opts->x_flag_tree_vectorize = value;
+ if (!opts_set->x_flag_tree_loop_vectorize)
+ opts->x_flag_tree_loop_vectorize = value;
+ if (!opts_set->x_flag_tree_slp_vectorize)
+ opts->x_flag_tree_slp_vectorize = value;
similar - if I use -fprofile-use -fno-tree-vecotorize you override this choice.
This case should be wrapped in if (!opts_set->x_flag_tree_vectorize)
@item -ftree-vectorize
@opindex ftree-vectorize
+Perform vectorization on trees. This flag enables
@option{-ftree-loop-vectorize}
+and @option{-ftree-slp-vectorize} if neither option is explicitly specified.
"if neither option is explicitely specified" doesn't correctly document
-ftree-loop-vectorize -ftree-vectorize behavior, no? (-ftree-slp-vectorize
is still enabled here)
I'm not a native speaker so I cannot suggest a clearer wording here
but maybe just say "if not explicitely specified".
Ok with the -fprofile-use change I suggested and whatever resolution Jakub
suggests and the doc adjustment.
Thanks,
Richard.
> thanks,
>
> David
>
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> Ok -- then my updated patch is wrong then. The implementation in the
>> first version matches the requirement.
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Joseph S. Myers
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 13 Sep 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
@@ -1691,6 +1695,12 @@ common_handle_option (struct gcc_options
opts->x_flag_ipa_reference = false;
break;
+case OPT_ftree_vectorize:
+ if (!opts_set->x_flag_tree_loop_vectorize)
+ opts->x_flag_tree_loop_vectorize = value;
+ if (!opts_set->x_flag_tree_slp_vectorize)
+ opts->x_flag_tree_slp_vectorize = value;
+ break;
doesn't look obviously correct. Does that handle
>>>
>>> It looks right to me. The general principle is that the more specific
>>> option takes precedence over the less specific one, whatever the order on
>>> the command line.
>>>
-ftree-vectorize -fno-tree-loop-vectorize -ftree-vectorize
>>>
>>> Should mean -ftree-slp-vectorize.
>>>
-ftree-loop-vectorize -fno-tree-vectorize
>>>
>>> Should mean -ftree-loop-vectorize.
>>>
-ftree-slp-vectorize -fno-tree-vectorize
>>>
>>> Should mean -ftree-slp-vectorize.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Joseph S. Myers
>>> jos...@codesourcery.com
Re: New GCC options for loop vectorization
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Fri, 13 Sep 2013, Richard Biener wrote: > >> @@ -1691,6 +1695,12 @@ common_handle_option (struct gcc_options >> opts->x_flag_ipa_reference = false; >>break; >> >> +case OPT_ftree_vectorize: >> + if (!opts_set->x_flag_tree_loop_vectorize) >> + opts->x_flag_tree_loop_vectorize = value; >> + if (!opts_set->x_flag_tree_slp_vectorize) >> + opts->x_flag_tree_slp_vectorize = value; >> + break; >> >> doesn't look obviously correct. Does that handle > > It looks right to me. The general principle is that the more specific > option takes precedence over the less specific one, whatever the order on > the command line. > >> -ftree-vectorize -fno-tree-loop-vectorize -ftree-vectorize > > Should mean -ftree-slp-vectorize. > >> -ftree-loop-vectorize -fno-tree-vectorize > > Should mean -ftree-loop-vectorize. > >> -ftree-slp-vectorize -fno-tree-vectorize > > Should mean -ftree-slp-vectorize. Thanks for clarifying. Richard. > -- > Joseph S. Myers > jos...@codesourcery.com
Re: New GCC options for loop vectorization
Updated patch implementing the logic that more specific option wins.
Ok for trunk?
thanks,
David
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> Ok -- then my updated patch is wrong then. The implementation in the
> first version matches the requirement.
>
> thanks,
>
> David
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Joseph S. Myers
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Sep 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>>> @@ -1691,6 +1695,12 @@ common_handle_option (struct gcc_options
>>> opts->x_flag_ipa_reference = false;
>>>break;
>>>
>>> +case OPT_ftree_vectorize:
>>> + if (!opts_set->x_flag_tree_loop_vectorize)
>>> + opts->x_flag_tree_loop_vectorize = value;
>>> + if (!opts_set->x_flag_tree_slp_vectorize)
>>> + opts->x_flag_tree_slp_vectorize = value;
>>> + break;
>>>
>>> doesn't look obviously correct. Does that handle
>>
>> It looks right to me. The general principle is that the more specific
>> option takes precedence over the less specific one, whatever the order on
>> the command line.
>>
>>> -ftree-vectorize -fno-tree-loop-vectorize -ftree-vectorize
>>
>> Should mean -ftree-slp-vectorize.
>>
>>> -ftree-loop-vectorize -fno-tree-vectorize
>>
>> Should mean -ftree-loop-vectorize.
>>
>>> -ftree-slp-vectorize -fno-tree-vectorize
>>
>> Should mean -ftree-slp-vectorize.
>>
>> --
>> Joseph S. Myers
>> jos...@codesourcery.com
Index: omp-low.c
===
--- omp-low.c (revision 202540)
+++ omp-low.c (working copy)
@@ -2305,8 +2305,8 @@ omp_max_vf (void)
{
if (!optimize
|| optimize_debug
- || (!flag_tree_vectorize
- && global_options_set.x_flag_tree_vectorize))
+ || (!flag_tree_loop_vectorize
+ && global_options_set.x_flag_tree_loop_vectorize))
return 1;
int vs = targetm.vectorize.autovectorize_vector_sizes ();
@@ -5684,10 +5684,10 @@ expand_omp_simd (struct omp_region *regi
loop->simduid = OMP_CLAUSE__SIMDUID__DECL (simduid);
cfun->has_simduid_loops = true;
}
- /* If not -fno-tree-vectorize, hint that we want to vectorize
+ /* If not -fno-tree-loop-vectorize, hint that we want to vectorize
the loop. */
- if ((flag_tree_vectorize
- || !global_options_set.x_flag_tree_vectorize)
+ if ((flag_tree_loop_vectorize
+ || !global_options_set.x_flag_tree_loop_vectorize)
&& loop->safelen > 1)
{
loop->force_vect = true;
Index: ChangeLog
===
--- ChangeLog (revision 202540)
+++ ChangeLog (working copy)
@@ -1,3 +1,22 @@
+2013-09-12 Xinliang David Li
+
+ * tree-if-conv.c (main_tree_if_conversion): Check new flag.
+ * omp-low.c (omp_max_vf): Ditto.
+ (expand_omp_simd): Ditto.
+ * tree-vectorizer.c (vectorize_loops): Ditto.
+ (gate_vect_slp): Ditto.
+ (gate_increase_alignment): Ditto.
+ * tree-ssa-pre.c (inhibit_phi_insertion): Ditto.
+ * tree-ssa-loop.c (gate_tree_vectorize): Ditto.
+ (gate_tree_vectorize): Name change.
+ (tree_vectorize): Ditto.
+ (pass_vectorize::gate): Call new function.
+ (pass_vectorize::execute): Ditto.
+ opts.c: O3 default setting change.
+ (finish_options): Check new flag.
+ * doc/invoke.texi: Document new flags.
+ * common.opt: New flags.
+
2013-09-12 Vladimir Makarov
PR middle-end/58335
Index: opts.c
===
--- opts.c (revision 202540)
+++ opts.c (working copy)
@@ -498,7 +498,8 @@ static const struct default_options defa
{ OPT_LEVELS_1_PLUS_NOT_DEBUG, OPT_finline_functions_called_once, NULL, 1
},
{ OPT_LEVELS_3_PLUS, OPT_funswitch_loops, NULL, 1 },
{ OPT_LEVELS_3_PLUS, OPT_fgcse_after_reload, NULL, 1 },
-{ OPT_LEVELS_3_PLUS, OPT_ftree_vectorize, NULL, 1 },
+{ OPT_LEVELS_3_PLUS, OPT_ftree_loop_vectorize, NULL, 1 },
+{ OPT_LEVELS_3_PLUS, OPT_ftree_slp_vectorize, NULL, 1 },
{ OPT_LEVELS_3_PLUS, OPT_fvect_cost_model, NULL, 1 },
{ OPT_LEVELS_3_PLUS, OPT_fipa_cp_clone, NULL, 1 },
{ OPT_LEVELS_3_PLUS, OPT_ftree_partial_pre, NULL, 1 },
@@ -826,7 +827,8 @@ finish_options (struct gcc_options *opts
/* Set PARAM_MAX_STORES_TO_SINK to 0 if either vectorization or if-conversion
is disabled. */
- if (!opts->x_flag_tree_vectorize || !opts->x_flag_tree_loop_if_convert)
+ if ((!opts->x_flag_tree_loop_vectorize && !opts->x_flag_tree_slp_vectorize)
+ || !opts->x_flag_tree_loop_if_convert)
maybe_set_param_value (PARAM_MAX_STORES_TO_SINK, 0,
opts->x_param_values, opts_set->x_param_values);
@@ -1660,8 +1662,10 @@ common_handle_option (struct gcc_options
opts->x_flag_unswitch_loops = value;
if (!opts_set->x_flag_gcse_after_reload)
opts->x_flag_gcse_after_reload = value;
- if (!opts_set->x_flag_tree_vectorize)
-
Re: New GCC options for loop vectorization
Ok -- then my updated patch is wrong then. The implementation in the first version matches the requirement. thanks, David On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Fri, 13 Sep 2013, Richard Biener wrote: > >> @@ -1691,6 +1695,12 @@ common_handle_option (struct gcc_options >> opts->x_flag_ipa_reference = false; >>break; >> >> +case OPT_ftree_vectorize: >> + if (!opts_set->x_flag_tree_loop_vectorize) >> + opts->x_flag_tree_loop_vectorize = value; >> + if (!opts_set->x_flag_tree_slp_vectorize) >> + opts->x_flag_tree_slp_vectorize = value; >> + break; >> >> doesn't look obviously correct. Does that handle > > It looks right to me. The general principle is that the more specific > option takes precedence over the less specific one, whatever the order on > the command line. > >> -ftree-vectorize -fno-tree-loop-vectorize -ftree-vectorize > > Should mean -ftree-slp-vectorize. > >> -ftree-loop-vectorize -fno-tree-vectorize > > Should mean -ftree-loop-vectorize. > >> -ftree-slp-vectorize -fno-tree-vectorize > > Should mean -ftree-slp-vectorize. > > -- > Joseph S. Myers > jos...@codesourcery.com
Re: New GCC options for loop vectorization
On Fri, 13 Sep 2013, Richard Biener wrote: > @@ -1691,6 +1695,12 @@ common_handle_option (struct gcc_options > opts->x_flag_ipa_reference = false; >break; > > +case OPT_ftree_vectorize: > + if (!opts_set->x_flag_tree_loop_vectorize) > + opts->x_flag_tree_loop_vectorize = value; > + if (!opts_set->x_flag_tree_slp_vectorize) > + opts->x_flag_tree_slp_vectorize = value; > + break; > > doesn't look obviously correct. Does that handle It looks right to me. The general principle is that the more specific option takes precedence over the less specific one, whatever the order on the command line. > -ftree-vectorize -fno-tree-loop-vectorize -ftree-vectorize Should mean -ftree-slp-vectorize. > -ftree-loop-vectorize -fno-tree-vectorize Should mean -ftree-loop-vectorize. > -ftree-slp-vectorize -fno-tree-vectorize Should mean -ftree-slp-vectorize. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
Re: New GCC options for loop vectorization
New patch attached. 1) the peeling part is removed 2) the new patch implements the last-one-wins logic. -ftree-vectorize behaves like a true alias. -fno-tree-vectorize can override previous -ftree-xxx-vectorize. Ok for trunk after testing? thanks, David On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote: > On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Richard Biener > wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Xinliang David Li >> wrote: >>> Currently -ftree-vectorize turns on both loop and slp vectorizations, >>> but there is no simple way to turn on loop vectorization alone. The >>> logic for default O3 setting is also complicated. >>> >>> In this patch, two new options are introduced: >>> >>> 1) -ftree-loop-vectorize >>> >>> This option is used to turn on loop vectorization only. option >>> -ftree-slp-vectorize also becomes a first class citizen, and no funny >>> business of Init(2) is needed. With this change, -ftree-vectorize >>> becomes a simple alias to -ftree-loop-vectorize + >>> -ftree-slp-vectorize. >>> >>> For instance, to turn on only slp vectorize at O3, the old way is: >>> >>> -O3 -fno-tree-vectorize -ftree-slp-vectorize >>> >>> With the new change it becomes: >>> >>> -O3 -fno-loop-vectorize >>> >>> >>> To turn on only loop vectorize at O2, the old way is >>> >>> -O2 -ftree-vectorize -fno-slp-vectorize >>> >>> The new way is >>> >>> -O2 -ftree-loop-vectorize >>> >>> >>> >>> 2) -ftree-vect-loop-peeling >>> >>> This option is used to turn on/off loop peeling for alignment. In the >>> long run, this should be folded into the cheap cost model proposed by >>> Richard. This option is also useful in scenarios where peeling can >>> introduce runtime problems: >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-12/msg00390.html which happens to be >>> common in practice. >>> >>> >>> >>> Patch attached. Compiler boostrapped. Ok after testing? >> >> I'd like you to split 1) and 2), mainly because I agree on 1) but not on 2). > > Ok. Can you also comment on 2) ? > >> >> I've stopped a quick try doing 1) myself because >> >> @@ -1691,6 +1695,12 @@ common_handle_option (struct gcc_options >> opts->x_flag_ipa_reference = false; >>break; >> >> +case OPT_ftree_vectorize: >> + if (!opts_set->x_flag_tree_loop_vectorize) >> + opts->x_flag_tree_loop_vectorize = value; >> + if (!opts_set->x_flag_tree_slp_vectorize) >> + opts->x_flag_tree_slp_vectorize = value; >> + break; >> >> doesn't look obviously correct. Does that handle >> >> -ftree-vectorize -fno-tree-loop-vectorize -ftree-vectorize >> >> or >> >> -ftree-loop-vectorize -fno-tree-vectorize >> >> properly? Currently at least >> >> -ftree-slp-vectorize -fno-tree-vectorize >> >> doesn't "work". > > > Right -- same is true for -fprofile-use option. FDO enables some > passes, but can not re-enable them if they are flipped off before. > >> >> That said, the option machinery doesn't handle an option being an alias >> for two other options, so it's mechanism to contract positives/negatives >> doesn't work here and the override hooks do not work reliably for >> repeated options. >> >> Or am I wrong here? Should we care at all? Joseph? > > We should probably just document the behavior. Even better, we should > deprecate the old option. > > thanks, > > David > >> >> Thanks, >> Richard. >> >>> >>> thanks, >>> >>> David Index: ChangeLog === --- ChangeLog (revision 202540) +++ ChangeLog (working copy) @@ -1,3 +1,22 @@ +2013-09-12 Xinliang David Li + + * tree-if-conv.c (main_tree_if_conversion): Check new flag. + * omp-low.c (omp_max_vf): Ditto. + (expand_omp_simd): Ditto. + * tree-vectorizer.c (vectorize_loops): Ditto. + (gate_vect_slp): Ditto. + (gate_increase_alignment): Ditto. + * tree-ssa-pre.c (inhibit_phi_insertion): Ditto. + * tree-ssa-loop.c (gate_tree_vectorize): Ditto. + (gate_tree_vectorize): Name change. + (tree_vectorize): Ditto. + (pass_vectorize::gate): Call new function. + (pass_vectorize::execute): Ditto. + opts.c: O3 default setting change. + (finish_options): Check new flag. + * doc/invoke.texi: Document new flags. + * common.opt: New flags. + 2013-09-12 Vladimir Makarov PR middle-end/58335 Index: cp/lambda.c === --- cp/lambda.c (revision 202540) +++ cp/lambda.c (working copy) @@ -792,7 +792,7 @@ maybe_add_lambda_conv_op (tree type) particular, parameter pack expansions are marked PACK_EXPANSION_LOCAL_P in the body CALL, but not in DECLTYPE_CALL. */ - vec *direct_argvec; + vec *direct_argvec = NULL; tree decltype_call = 0, call; tree fn_result = TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (callop)); Index: tree-ssa-loop.c === --- tree-ssa-loop.c (revision 202540) +++ tree-ssa-loop.c (work
Re: New GCC options for loop vectorization
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Xinliang David Li > wrote: >> Currently -ftree-vectorize turns on both loop and slp vectorizations, >> but there is no simple way to turn on loop vectorization alone. The >> logic for default O3 setting is also complicated. >> >> In this patch, two new options are introduced: >> >> 1) -ftree-loop-vectorize >> >> This option is used to turn on loop vectorization only. option >> -ftree-slp-vectorize also becomes a first class citizen, and no funny >> business of Init(2) is needed. With this change, -ftree-vectorize >> becomes a simple alias to -ftree-loop-vectorize + >> -ftree-slp-vectorize. >> >> For instance, to turn on only slp vectorize at O3, the old way is: >> >> -O3 -fno-tree-vectorize -ftree-slp-vectorize >> >> With the new change it becomes: >> >> -O3 -fno-loop-vectorize >> >> >> To turn on only loop vectorize at O2, the old way is >> >> -O2 -ftree-vectorize -fno-slp-vectorize >> >> The new way is >> >> -O2 -ftree-loop-vectorize >> >> >> >> 2) -ftree-vect-loop-peeling >> >> This option is used to turn on/off loop peeling for alignment. In the >> long run, this should be folded into the cheap cost model proposed by >> Richard. This option is also useful in scenarios where peeling can >> introduce runtime problems: >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-12/msg00390.html which happens to be >> common in practice. >> >> >> >> Patch attached. Compiler boostrapped. Ok after testing? > > I'd like you to split 1) and 2), mainly because I agree on 1) but not on 2). Ok. Can you also comment on 2) ? > > I've stopped a quick try doing 1) myself because > > @@ -1691,6 +1695,12 @@ common_handle_option (struct gcc_options > opts->x_flag_ipa_reference = false; >break; > > +case OPT_ftree_vectorize: > + if (!opts_set->x_flag_tree_loop_vectorize) > + opts->x_flag_tree_loop_vectorize = value; > + if (!opts_set->x_flag_tree_slp_vectorize) > + opts->x_flag_tree_slp_vectorize = value; > + break; > > doesn't look obviously correct. Does that handle > > -ftree-vectorize -fno-tree-loop-vectorize -ftree-vectorize > > or > > -ftree-loop-vectorize -fno-tree-vectorize > > properly? Currently at least > > -ftree-slp-vectorize -fno-tree-vectorize > > doesn't "work". Right -- same is true for -fprofile-use option. FDO enables some passes, but can not re-enable them if they are flipped off before. > > That said, the option machinery doesn't handle an option being an alias > for two other options, so it's mechanism to contract positives/negatives > doesn't work here and the override hooks do not work reliably for > repeated options. > > Or am I wrong here? Should we care at all? Joseph? We should probably just document the behavior. Even better, we should deprecate the old option. thanks, David > > Thanks, > Richard. > >> >> thanks, >> >> David
Re: New GCC options for loop vectorization
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote: > Currently -ftree-vectorize turns on both loop and slp vectorizations, > but there is no simple way to turn on loop vectorization alone. The > logic for default O3 setting is also complicated. > > In this patch, two new options are introduced: > > 1) -ftree-loop-vectorize > > This option is used to turn on loop vectorization only. option > -ftree-slp-vectorize also becomes a first class citizen, and no funny > business of Init(2) is needed. With this change, -ftree-vectorize > becomes a simple alias to -ftree-loop-vectorize + > -ftree-slp-vectorize. > > For instance, to turn on only slp vectorize at O3, the old way is: > > -O3 -fno-tree-vectorize -ftree-slp-vectorize > > With the new change it becomes: > > -O3 -fno-loop-vectorize > > > To turn on only loop vectorize at O2, the old way is > > -O2 -ftree-vectorize -fno-slp-vectorize > > The new way is > > -O2 -ftree-loop-vectorize > > > > 2) -ftree-vect-loop-peeling > > This option is used to turn on/off loop peeling for alignment. In the > long run, this should be folded into the cheap cost model proposed by > Richard. This option is also useful in scenarios where peeling can > introduce runtime problems: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-12/msg00390.html which happens to be > common in practice. > > > > Patch attached. Compiler boostrapped. Ok after testing? I'd like you to split 1) and 2), mainly because I agree on 1) but not on 2). I've stopped a quick try doing 1) myself because @@ -1691,6 +1695,12 @@ common_handle_option (struct gcc_options opts->x_flag_ipa_reference = false; break; +case OPT_ftree_vectorize: + if (!opts_set->x_flag_tree_loop_vectorize) + opts->x_flag_tree_loop_vectorize = value; + if (!opts_set->x_flag_tree_slp_vectorize) + opts->x_flag_tree_slp_vectorize = value; + break; doesn't look obviously correct. Does that handle -ftree-vectorize -fno-tree-loop-vectorize -ftree-vectorize or -ftree-loop-vectorize -fno-tree-vectorize properly? Currently at least -ftree-slp-vectorize -fno-tree-vectorize doesn't "work". That said, the option machinery doesn't handle an option being an alias for two other options, so it's mechanism to contract positives/negatives doesn't work here and the override hooks do not work reliably for repeated options. Or am I wrong here? Should we care at all? Joseph? Thanks, Richard. > > thanks, > > David
New GCC options for loop vectorization
Currently -ftree-vectorize turns on both loop and slp vectorizations,
but there is no simple way to turn on loop vectorization alone. The
logic for default O3 setting is also complicated.
In this patch, two new options are introduced:
1) -ftree-loop-vectorize
This option is used to turn on loop vectorization only. option
-ftree-slp-vectorize also becomes a first class citizen, and no funny
business of Init(2) is needed. With this change, -ftree-vectorize
becomes a simple alias to -ftree-loop-vectorize +
-ftree-slp-vectorize.
For instance, to turn on only slp vectorize at O3, the old way is:
-O3 -fno-tree-vectorize -ftree-slp-vectorize
With the new change it becomes:
-O3 -fno-loop-vectorize
To turn on only loop vectorize at O2, the old way is
-O2 -ftree-vectorize -fno-slp-vectorize
The new way is
-O2 -ftree-loop-vectorize
2) -ftree-vect-loop-peeling
This option is used to turn on/off loop peeling for alignment. In the
long run, this should be folded into the cheap cost model proposed by
Richard. This option is also useful in scenarios where peeling can
introduce runtime problems:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-12/msg00390.html which happens to be
common in practice.
Patch attached. Compiler boostrapped. Ok after testing?
thanks,
David
Index: omp-low.c
===
--- omp-low.c (revision 202481)
+++ omp-low.c (working copy)
@@ -2305,8 +2305,8 @@ omp_max_vf (void)
{
if (!optimize
|| optimize_debug
- || (!flag_tree_vectorize
- && global_options_set.x_flag_tree_vectorize))
+ || (!flag_tree_loop_vectorize
+ && global_options_set.x_flag_tree_loop_vectorize))
return 1;
int vs = targetm.vectorize.autovectorize_vector_sizes ();
@@ -5684,10 +5684,10 @@ expand_omp_simd (struct omp_region *regi
loop->simduid = OMP_CLAUSE__SIMDUID__DECL (simduid);
cfun->has_simduid_loops = true;
}
- /* If not -fno-tree-vectorize, hint that we want to vectorize
+ /* If not -fno-tree-loop-vectorize, hint that we want to vectorize
the loop. */
- if ((flag_tree_vectorize
- || !global_options_set.x_flag_tree_vectorize)
+ if ((flag_tree_loop_vectorize
+ || !global_options_set.x_flag_tree_loop_vectorize)
&& loop->safelen > 1)
{
loop->force_vect = true;
Index: ChangeLog
===
--- ChangeLog (revision 202481)
+++ ChangeLog (working copy)
@@ -1,3 +1,24 @@
+2013-09-12 Xinliang David Li
+
+ * tree-if-conv.c (main_tree_if_conversion): Check new flag.
+ * omp-low.c (omp_max_vf): Ditto.
+ (expand_omp_simd): Ditto.
+ * tree-vectorizer.c (vectorize_loops): Ditto.
+ (gate_vect_slp): Ditto.
+ (gate_increase_alignment): Ditto.
+ * tree-vect-data-refs.c (vect_enhance_data_refs_alignment): Ditto.
+ * tree-ssa-pre.c (inhibit_phi_insertion): Ditto.
+ * tree-ssa-loop.c (gate_tree_vectorize): Ditto.
+ (gate_tree_vectorize): Name change.
+ (tree_vectorize): Ditto.
+ (pass_vectorize::gate): Call new function.
+ (pass_vectorize::execute): Ditto.
+ opts.c: O3 default setting change.
+ (finish_options): Check new flag.
+ * doc/invoke.texi: Document new flags.
+ * common.opt: New flags.
+
+
2013-09-10 Richard Earnshaw
PR target/58361
Index: doc/invoke.texi
===
--- doc/invoke.texi (revision 202481)
+++ doc/invoke.texi (working copy)
@@ -419,10 +419,12 @@ Objective-C and Objective-C++ Dialects}.
-ftree-loop-if-convert-stores -ftree-loop-im @gol
-ftree-phiprop -ftree-loop-distribution -ftree-loop-distribute-patterns @gol
-ftree-loop-ivcanon -ftree-loop-linear -ftree-loop-optimize @gol
+-ftree-loop-vectorize @gol
-ftree-parallelize-loops=@var{n} -ftree-pre -ftree-partial-pre -ftree-pta @gol
-ftree-reassoc -ftree-sink -ftree-slsr -ftree-sra @gol
--ftree-switch-conversion -ftree-tail-merge @gol
--ftree-ter -ftree-vect-loop-version -ftree-vectorize -ftree-vrp @gol
+-ftree-switch-conversion -ftree-tail-merge -ftree-ter @gol
+-ftree-vect-loop-version -ftree-vect-loop-peeling -ftree-vectorize @gol
+-ftree-vrp @gol
-funit-at-a-time -funroll-all-loops -funroll-loops @gol
-funsafe-loop-optimizations -funsafe-math-optimizations -funswitch-loops @gol
-fvariable-expansion-in-unroller -fvect-cost-model -fvpt -fweb @gol
@@ -6748,8 +6750,8 @@ invoking @option{-O2} on programs that u
Optimize yet more. @option{-O3} turns on all optimizations specified
by @option{-O2} and also turns on the @option{-finline-functions},
@option{-funswitch-loops}, @option{-fpredictive-commoning},
-@option{-fgcse-after-reload}, @option{-ftree-vectorize},
-@option{-fvect-cost-model},
+@option{-fgcse-after-reload}, @option{-ftree-loop-vectorize},
+@option{-ftree-slp-vectorize}, @option{-fvect-cost-m
