Message ID | mpt35ncy55v.fsf@arm.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Series | vect: Tighten check for SLP memory groups [PR103517] | expand |
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 11:56 AM Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > When checking for compatible stmts, vect_build_slp_tree_1 did: > > && !(STMT_VINFO_GROUPED_ACCESS (stmt_info) > && (first_stmt_code == ARRAY_REF > || first_stmt_code == BIT_FIELD_REF > || first_stmt_code == INDIRECT_REF > || first_stmt_code == COMPONENT_REF > || first_stmt_code == MEM_REF))) > > That is, it allowed any rhs_code as long as the first_stmt_code > looked valid. This had the effect of allowing IFN_MASK_LOAD > to be paired with an earlier non-call code (but didn't allow > the reverse). > > This patch makes the check symmetrical. > > Still testing on x86_64-linux-gnu. OK if testing passes, or doesn't > this seem like the right approach? It's indeed a too weak comparison of the classification of the first and the followup operands, some larger refactoring is probably needed to improve here (note how we compare STMT_VINFO_GROUPED_ACCESS of the followup against the tree codes of the first stmt but also later compare first_stmt_load_p against load_p). The proposed patch looks reasonable (but then we could drop the STMT_VINFO_GROUPED_ACCESS (stmt_info) part of the check?), so OK. Thanks, Richard. > Richard > > > gcc/ > PR tree-optimization/103517 > * tree-vect-slp.c (vect_build_slp_tree_1): When allowing two > different component references, check the codes of both them, > rather than just the first. > > gcc/testsuite/ > PR tree-optimization/103517 > * gcc.dg/vect/pr103517.c: New test. > --- > gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr103517.c | 13 +++++++++++++ > gcc/tree-vect-slp.c | 7 ++++++- > 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr103517.c > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr103517.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr103517.c > new file mode 100644 > index 00000000000..de87fc48f84 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr103517.c > @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ > +/* { dg-do compile } */ > +/* { dg-additional-options "-march=skylake-avx512" { target x86_64-*-* i?86-*-* } } */ > + > +int a; > +short b, c; > +extern short d[]; > +void e() { > + for (short f = 1; f < (short)a; f += 2) > + if (d[f + 1]) { > + b = d[f]; > + c = d[f + 1]; > + } > +} > diff --git a/gcc/tree-vect-slp.c b/gcc/tree-vect-slp.c > index 7bff5118bd0..bc22ffeed82 100644 > --- a/gcc/tree-vect-slp.c > +++ b/gcc/tree-vect-slp.c > @@ -1121,7 +1121,12 @@ vect_build_slp_tree_1 (vec_info *vinfo, unsigned char *swap, > || first_stmt_code == BIT_FIELD_REF > || first_stmt_code == INDIRECT_REF > || first_stmt_code == COMPONENT_REF > - || first_stmt_code == MEM_REF))) > + || first_stmt_code == MEM_REF) > + && (rhs_code == ARRAY_REF > + || rhs_code == BIT_FIELD_REF > + || rhs_code == INDIRECT_REF > + || rhs_code == COMPONENT_REF > + || rhs_code == MEM_REF))) > || first_stmt_load_p != load_p > || first_stmt_phi_p != phi_p) > { > -- > 2.25.1 >
Richard Biener via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes: > On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 11:56 AM Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches > <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: >> >> When checking for compatible stmts, vect_build_slp_tree_1 did: >> >> && !(STMT_VINFO_GROUPED_ACCESS (stmt_info) >> && (first_stmt_code == ARRAY_REF >> || first_stmt_code == BIT_FIELD_REF >> || first_stmt_code == INDIRECT_REF >> || first_stmt_code == COMPONENT_REF >> || first_stmt_code == MEM_REF))) >> >> That is, it allowed any rhs_code as long as the first_stmt_code >> looked valid. This had the effect of allowing IFN_MASK_LOAD >> to be paired with an earlier non-call code (but didn't allow >> the reverse). >> >> This patch makes the check symmetrical. >> >> Still testing on x86_64-linux-gnu. OK if testing passes, or doesn't >> this seem like the right approach? > > It's indeed a too weak comparison of the classification of the first > and the followup operands, some larger refactoring is probably > needed to improve here (note how we compare STMT_VINFO_GROUPED_ACCESS > of the followup against the tree codes of the first stmt but also later > compare first_stmt_load_p against load_p). > > The proposed patch looks reasonable (but then we could drop > the STMT_VINFO_GROUPED_ACCESS (stmt_info) part of the check?), Yeah, was wondering about that. Seemed safer to keep it, since without it we might pair non-memory BIT_FIELD_REFs with other things. I guess the same goes for the first stmt though, and the mismatch ought to be caught later anyway. > so OK. Thanks, Richard > Thanks, > Richard. > >> Richard >> >> >> gcc/ >> PR tree-optimization/103517 >> * tree-vect-slp.c (vect_build_slp_tree_1): When allowing two >> different component references, check the codes of both them, >> rather than just the first. >> >> gcc/testsuite/ >> PR tree-optimization/103517 >> * gcc.dg/vect/pr103517.c: New test. >> --- >> gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr103517.c | 13 +++++++++++++ >> gcc/tree-vect-slp.c | 7 ++++++- >> 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr103517.c >> >> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr103517.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr103517.c >> new file mode 100644 >> index 00000000000..de87fc48f84 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr103517.c >> @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ >> +/* { dg-do compile } */ >> +/* { dg-additional-options "-march=skylake-avx512" { target x86_64-*-* i?86-*-* } } */ >> + >> +int a; >> +short b, c; >> +extern short d[]; >> +void e() { >> + for (short f = 1; f < (short)a; f += 2) >> + if (d[f + 1]) { >> + b = d[f]; >> + c = d[f + 1]; >> + } >> +} >> diff --git a/gcc/tree-vect-slp.c b/gcc/tree-vect-slp.c >> index 7bff5118bd0..bc22ffeed82 100644 >> --- a/gcc/tree-vect-slp.c >> +++ b/gcc/tree-vect-slp.c >> @@ -1121,7 +1121,12 @@ vect_build_slp_tree_1 (vec_info *vinfo, unsigned char *swap, >> || first_stmt_code == BIT_FIELD_REF >> || first_stmt_code == INDIRECT_REF >> || first_stmt_code == COMPONENT_REF >> - || first_stmt_code == MEM_REF))) >> + || first_stmt_code == MEM_REF) >> + && (rhs_code == ARRAY_REF >> + || rhs_code == BIT_FIELD_REF >> + || rhs_code == INDIRECT_REF >> + || rhs_code == COMPONENT_REF >> + || rhs_code == MEM_REF))) >> || first_stmt_load_p != load_p >> || first_stmt_phi_p != phi_p) >> { >> -- >> 2.25.1 >>
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 2:25 PM Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com> wrote: > > Richard Biener via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes: > > On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 11:56 AM Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches > > <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > >> > >> When checking for compatible stmts, vect_build_slp_tree_1 did: > >> > >> && !(STMT_VINFO_GROUPED_ACCESS (stmt_info) > >> && (first_stmt_code == ARRAY_REF > >> || first_stmt_code == BIT_FIELD_REF > >> || first_stmt_code == INDIRECT_REF > >> || first_stmt_code == COMPONENT_REF > >> || first_stmt_code == MEM_REF))) > >> > >> That is, it allowed any rhs_code as long as the first_stmt_code > >> looked valid. This had the effect of allowing IFN_MASK_LOAD > >> to be paired with an earlier non-call code (but didn't allow > >> the reverse). > >> > >> This patch makes the check symmetrical. > >> > >> Still testing on x86_64-linux-gnu. OK if testing passes, or doesn't > >> this seem like the right approach? > > > > It's indeed a too weak comparison of the classification of the first > > and the followup operands, some larger refactoring is probably > > needed to improve here (note how we compare STMT_VINFO_GROUPED_ACCESS > > of the followup against the tree codes of the first stmt but also later > > compare first_stmt_load_p against load_p). > > > > The proposed patch looks reasonable (but then we could drop > > the STMT_VINFO_GROUPED_ACCESS (stmt_info) part of the check?), > > Yeah, was wondering about that. Seemed safer to keep it, since without > it we might pair non-memory BIT_FIELD_REFs with other things. I guess > the same goes for the first stmt though, and the mismatch ought to be > caught later anyway. Hmm, yeah. I guess some classify_stmt () returning a custom enum and comparing that might clean up this whole thing. But nothing for stage3. Richard. > > so OK. > > Thanks, > Richard > > > Thanks, > > Richard. > > > >> Richard > >> > >> > >> gcc/ > >> PR tree-optimization/103517 > >> * tree-vect-slp.c (vect_build_slp_tree_1): When allowing two > >> different component references, check the codes of both them, > >> rather than just the first. > >> > >> gcc/testsuite/ > >> PR tree-optimization/103517 > >> * gcc.dg/vect/pr103517.c: New test. > >> --- > >> gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr103517.c | 13 +++++++++++++ > >> gcc/tree-vect-slp.c | 7 ++++++- > >> 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr103517.c > >> > >> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr103517.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr103517.c > >> new file mode 100644 > >> index 00000000000..de87fc48f84 > >> --- /dev/null > >> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr103517.c > >> @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ > >> +/* { dg-do compile } */ > >> +/* { dg-additional-options "-march=skylake-avx512" { target x86_64-*-* i?86-*-* } } */ > >> + > >> +int a; > >> +short b, c; > >> +extern short d[]; > >> +void e() { > >> + for (short f = 1; f < (short)a; f += 2) > >> + if (d[f + 1]) { > >> + b = d[f]; > >> + c = d[f + 1]; > >> + } > >> +} > >> diff --git a/gcc/tree-vect-slp.c b/gcc/tree-vect-slp.c > >> index 7bff5118bd0..bc22ffeed82 100644 > >> --- a/gcc/tree-vect-slp.c > >> +++ b/gcc/tree-vect-slp.c > >> @@ -1121,7 +1121,12 @@ vect_build_slp_tree_1 (vec_info *vinfo, unsigned char *swap, > >> || first_stmt_code == BIT_FIELD_REF > >> || first_stmt_code == INDIRECT_REF > >> || first_stmt_code == COMPONENT_REF > >> - || first_stmt_code == MEM_REF))) > >> + || first_stmt_code == MEM_REF) > >> + && (rhs_code == ARRAY_REF > >> + || rhs_code == BIT_FIELD_REF > >> + || rhs_code == INDIRECT_REF > >> + || rhs_code == COMPONENT_REF > >> + || rhs_code == MEM_REF))) > >> || first_stmt_load_p != load_p > >> || first_stmt_phi_p != phi_p) > >> { > >> -- > >> 2.25.1 > >>
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr103517.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr103517.c new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..de87fc48f84 --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr103517.c @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +/* { dg-do compile } */ +/* { dg-additional-options "-march=skylake-avx512" { target x86_64-*-* i?86-*-* } } */ + +int a; +short b, c; +extern short d[]; +void e() { + for (short f = 1; f < (short)a; f += 2) + if (d[f + 1]) { + b = d[f]; + c = d[f + 1]; + } +} diff --git a/gcc/tree-vect-slp.c b/gcc/tree-vect-slp.c index 7bff5118bd0..bc22ffeed82 100644 --- a/gcc/tree-vect-slp.c +++ b/gcc/tree-vect-slp.c @@ -1121,7 +1121,12 @@ vect_build_slp_tree_1 (vec_info *vinfo, unsigned char *swap, || first_stmt_code == BIT_FIELD_REF || first_stmt_code == INDIRECT_REF || first_stmt_code == COMPONENT_REF - || first_stmt_code == MEM_REF))) + || first_stmt_code == MEM_REF) + && (rhs_code == ARRAY_REF + || rhs_code == BIT_FIELD_REF + || rhs_code == INDIRECT_REF + || rhs_code == COMPONENT_REF + || rhs_code == MEM_REF))) || first_stmt_load_p != load_p || first_stmt_phi_p != phi_p) {