| Message ID | 20111209170854.GZ1957@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On 9 December 2011 19:08, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote: > Hi! > > As mentioned in the PR, we ICE on the following testcase, because > there are DRs in a GIMPLE_CALL stmt and when there is just one, we > compute vectype for the call as if it were a load or store, but during > computation of vectorization factor we only consider the return value > of the call. As such calls are not vectorizable anyway, the following > patch just gives up on them. > > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk > (and with the if (bb_vinfo)/if (gather) parts removed for 4.6 too)? OK for trunk. Thanks, Ira > > 2011-12-09 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> > > PR tree-optimization/51485 > * tree-vect-data-refs.c (vect_analyze_data_refs): Give up on > DRs in call stmts. > > * g++.dg/vect/pr51485.cc: New test. > > --- gcc/tree-vect-data-refs.c.jj 2011-12-02 01:52:26.325893329 +0100 > +++ gcc/tree-vect-data-refs.c 2011-12-09 13:27:29.726668859 +0100 > @@ -2896,6 +2896,26 @@ vect_analyze_data_refs (loop_vec_info lo > return false; > } > > + if (is_gimple_call (stmt)) > + { > + if (vect_print_dump_info (REPORT_UNVECTORIZED_LOCATIONS)) > + { > + fprintf (vect_dump, "not vectorized: dr in a call "); > + print_gimple_stmt (vect_dump, stmt, 0, TDF_SLIM); > + } > + > + if (bb_vinfo) > + { > + STMT_VINFO_VECTORIZABLE (stmt_info) = false; > + stop_bb_analysis = true; > + continue; > + } > + > + if (gather) > + free_data_ref (dr); > + return false; > + } > + > /* Update DR field in stmt_vec_info struct. */ > > /* If the dataref is in an inner-loop of the loop that is considered for > --- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/vect/pr51485.cc.jj 2011-12-09 13:28:45.155281405 +0100 > +++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/vect/pr51485.cc 2011-12-09 13:28:57.692205773 +0100 > @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ > +/* { dg-do compile } */ > + > +struct A { A (); unsigned int a; }; > +double bar (A a) throw () __attribute__((pure)); > + > +void > +foo (unsigned int x, double *y, A *z) > +{ > + unsigned int i; > + for (i = 0; i < x; i++) > + y[i] = bar (z[i]); > +} > + > +/* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "vect" } } */ > > Jakub
On Sun, 11 Dec 2011, Ira Rosen wrote: > On 9 December 2011 19:08, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote: > > Hi! > > > > As mentioned in the PR, we ICE on the following testcase, because > > there are DRs in a GIMPLE_CALL stmt and when there is just one, we > > compute vectype for the call as if it were a load or store, but during > > computation of vectorization factor we only consider the return value > > of the call. As such calls are not vectorizable anyway, the following > > patch just gives up on them. > > > > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk > > (and with the if (bb_vinfo)/if (gather) parts removed for 4.6 too)? > > OK for trunk. Also for the branch. Thanks, Richard. > Thanks, > Ira > > > > > > 2011-12-09 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> > > > > PR tree-optimization/51485 > > * tree-vect-data-refs.c (vect_analyze_data_refs): Give up on > > DRs in call stmts. > > > > * g++.dg/vect/pr51485.cc: New test. > > > > --- gcc/tree-vect-data-refs.c.jj 2011-12-02 01:52:26.325893329 +0100 > > +++ gcc/tree-vect-data-refs.c 2011-12-09 13:27:29.726668859 +0100 > > @@ -2896,6 +2896,26 @@ vect_analyze_data_refs (loop_vec_info lo > > return false; > > } > > > > + if (is_gimple_call (stmt)) > > + { > > + if (vect_print_dump_info (REPORT_UNVECTORIZED_LOCATIONS)) > > + { > > + fprintf (vect_dump, "not vectorized: dr in a call "); > > + print_gimple_stmt (vect_dump, stmt, 0, TDF_SLIM); > > + } > > + > > + if (bb_vinfo) > > + { > > + STMT_VINFO_VECTORIZABLE (stmt_info) = false; > > + stop_bb_analysis = true; > > + continue; > > + } > > + > > + if (gather) > > + free_data_ref (dr); > > + return false; > > + } > > + > > /* Update DR field in stmt_vec_info struct. */ > > > > /* If the dataref is in an inner-loop of the loop that is considered for > > --- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/vect/pr51485.cc.jj 2011-12-09 13:28:45.155281405 +0100 > > +++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/vect/pr51485.cc 2011-12-09 13:28:57.692205773 +0100 > > @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ > > +/* { dg-do compile } */ > > + > > +struct A { A (); unsigned int a; }; > > +double bar (A a) throw () __attribute__((pure)); > > + > > +void > > +foo (unsigned int x, double *y, A *z) > > +{ > > + unsigned int i; > > + for (i = 0; i < x; i++) > > + y[i] = bar (z[i]); > > +} > > + > > +/* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "vect" } } */ > > > > Jakub > >
--- gcc/tree-vect-data-refs.c.jj 2011-12-02 01:52:26.325893329 +0100 +++ gcc/tree-vect-data-refs.c 2011-12-09 13:27:29.726668859 +0100 @@ -2896,6 +2896,26 @@ vect_analyze_data_refs (loop_vec_info lo return false; } + if (is_gimple_call (stmt)) + { + if (vect_print_dump_info (REPORT_UNVECTORIZED_LOCATIONS)) + { + fprintf (vect_dump, "not vectorized: dr in a call "); + print_gimple_stmt (vect_dump, stmt, 0, TDF_SLIM); + } + + if (bb_vinfo) + { + STMT_VINFO_VECTORIZABLE (stmt_info) = false; + stop_bb_analysis = true; + continue; + } + + if (gather) + free_data_ref (dr); + return false; + } + /* Update DR field in stmt_vec_info struct. */ /* If the dataref is in an inner-loop of the loop that is considered for --- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/vect/pr51485.cc.jj 2011-12-09 13:28:45.155281405 +0100 +++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/vect/pr51485.cc 2011-12-09 13:28:57.692205773 +0100 @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +/* { dg-do compile } */ + +struct A { A (); unsigned int a; }; +double bar (A a) throw () __attribute__((pure)); + +void +foo (unsigned int x, double *y, A *z) +{ + unsigned int i; + for (i = 0; i < x; i++) + y[i] = bar (z[i]); +} + +/* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "vect" } } */