Message ID | DB9PR08MB66030FB1C55990D025E62326F5719@DB9PR08MB6603.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Series | pr103523: Check for PLUS/MINUS support | expand |
Joel Hutton <Joel.Hutton@arm.com> writes: > Hi all, > > This is to address pr103523. > > bootstrapped and regression tested on aarch64. > > Check for PLUS_EXPR/MINUS_EXPR support in vectorizable_induction. > PR103523 is an ICE on valid code: > > void d(float *a, float b, int c) { > float e; > for (; c; c--, e += b) > a[c] = e; > } > > This is due to not checking for PLUS_EXPR support, which is missing in > VNx2sf mode. This causes an ICE at expand time. This patch adds a check > for support in vectorizable_induction. > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > PR tree-optimization/PR103523 The bugzilla hook expects: PR tree-optimization/103523 > * tree-vect-loop.c (vectorizable_induction): Check for > PLUS_EXPR/MINUS_EXPR support. OK, thanks. Richard
ok for backport to 11?
Joel Hutton <Joel.Hutton@arm.com> writes:
> ok for backport to 11?
Yes, thanks.
Richard
Hi Joel, your patch fails here with: ../../repos/gcc-11-commit/gcc/tree-vect-loop.c:8000:8: error: ‘directly_supported_p’ was not declared in this scope 8000 | if (!directly_supported_p (PLUS_EXPR, step_vectype) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ And "git grep" shows that this is only present in: gcc/tree-vect-loop.c: if (!directly_supported_p (PLUS_EXPR, step_vectype) gcc/tree-vect-loop.c: || !directly_supported_p (MINUS_EXPR, step_vectype)) That's different on mainline, which offers that function. Tobias On 10.12.21 14:24, Joel Hutton via Gcc-patches wrote: > ok for backport to 11? > ________________________________ > From: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com> > Sent: 10 December 2021 10:22 > To: Joel Hutton <Joel.Hutton@arm.com> > Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de> > Subject: Re: pr103523: Check for PLUS/MINUS support > > Joel Hutton <Joel.Hutton@arm.com> writes: >> Hi all, >> >> This is to address pr103523. >> >> bootstrapped and regression tested on aarch64. >> >> Check for PLUS_EXPR/MINUS_EXPR support in vectorizable_induction. >> PR103523 is an ICE on valid code: >> >> void d(float *a, float b, int c) { >> float e; >> for (; c; c--, e += b) >> a[c] = e; >> } >> >> This is due to not checking for PLUS_EXPR support, which is missing in >> VNx2sf mode. This causes an ICE at expand time. This patch adds a check >> for support in vectorizable_induction. >> >> gcc/ChangeLog: >> >> PR tree-optimization/PR103523 > The bugzilla hook expects: PR tree-optimization/103523 > >> * tree-vect-loop.c (vectorizable_induction): Check for >> PLUS_EXPR/MINUS_EXPR support. > OK, thanks. > > Richard ----------------- Siemens Electronic Design Automation GmbH; Anschrift: Arnulfstraße 201, 80634 München; Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung; Geschäftsführer: Thomas Heurung, Frank Thürauf; Sitz der Gesellschaft: München; Registergericht München, HRB 106955
On December 13, 2021 3:27:50 PM GMT+01:00, Tobias Burnus <tobias@codesourcery.com> wrote: >Hi Joel, > >your patch fails here with: > >../../repos/gcc-11-commit/gcc/tree-vect-loop.c:8000:8: error: >‘directly_supported_p’ was not declared in this scope > 8000 | if (!directly_supported_p (PLUS_EXPR, step_vectype) > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >And "git grep" shows that this is only present in: > >gcc/tree-vect-loop.c: if (!directly_supported_p (PLUS_EXPR, step_vectype) >gcc/tree-vect-loop.c: || !directly_supported_p (MINUS_EXPR, >step_vectype)) > >That's different on mainline, which offers that function. Just as a reminder, backports need regular bootstrap and regtest validation on the respective branches. Richard. >Tobias > >On 10.12.21 14:24, Joel Hutton via Gcc-patches wrote: >> ok for backport to 11? >> ________________________________ >> From: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com> >> Sent: 10 December 2021 10:22 >> To: Joel Hutton <Joel.Hutton@arm.com> >> Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de> >> Subject: Re: pr103523: Check for PLUS/MINUS support >> >> Joel Hutton <Joel.Hutton@arm.com> writes: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> This is to address pr103523. >>> >>> bootstrapped and regression tested on aarch64. >>> >>> Check for PLUS_EXPR/MINUS_EXPR support in vectorizable_induction. >>> PR103523 is an ICE on valid code: >>> >>> void d(float *a, float b, int c) { >>> float e; >>> for (; c; c--, e += b) >>> a[c] = e; >>> } >>> >>> This is due to not checking for PLUS_EXPR support, which is missing in >>> VNx2sf mode. This causes an ICE at expand time. This patch adds a check >>> for support in vectorizable_induction. >>> >>> gcc/ChangeLog: >>> >>> PR tree-optimization/PR103523 >> The bugzilla hook expects: PR tree-optimization/103523 >> >>> * tree-vect-loop.c (vectorizable_induction): Check for >>> PLUS_EXPR/MINUS_EXPR support. >> OK, thanks. >> >> Richard >----------------- >Siemens Electronic Design Automation GmbH; Anschrift: Arnulfstraße 201, 80634 München; Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung; Geschäftsführer: Thomas Heurung, Frank Thürauf; Sitz der Gesellschaft: München; Registergericht München, HRB 106955
My mistake, reworked patch. Tests are still running.
Bootstrapped and regression tested on releases/gcc-11 on aarch64.
Ok for 11?
Previous commit broke build as it relied on directly_supported_p which
is not in 11. This reworks to avoid using directly_supported_p.
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR bootstrap/103688
* tree-vect-loop.c (vectorizable_induction): Rework to avoid
directly_supported_p
From: Joel Hutton <Joel.Hutton@arm.com>
Sent: 13 December 2021 15:02
To: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Tobias Burnus <tobias@codesourcery.com>; Richard Sandiford <Richard.Sandiford@arm.com>
Cc: Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
Subject: Re: GCC 11 backport does not build (no "directly_supported_p") - was: Re: pr103523: Check for PLUS/MINUS support
My mistake, reworked patch. Tests are still running.
On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 09:37:03AM +0000, Joel Hutton via Gcc-patches wrote: > Bootstrapped and regression tested on releases/gcc-11 on aarch64. > > Ok for 11? > > Previous commit broke build as it relied on directly_supported_p which > is not in 11. This reworks to avoid using directly_supported_p. > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > PR bootstrap/103688 > * tree-vect-loop.c (vectorizable_induction): Rework to avoid > directly_supported_p Missing . after directly_supported_p --- a/gcc/tree-vect-loop.c +++ b/gcc/tree-vect-loop.c @@ -7997,8 +7997,14 @@ vectorizable_induction (loop_vec_info loop_vinfo, tree step_vectype = get_same_sized_vectype (TREE_TYPE (step_expr), vectype); /* Check for backend support of PLUS/MINUS_EXPR. */ - if (!directly_supported_p (PLUS_EXPR, step_vectype) - || !directly_supported_p (MINUS_EXPR, step_vectype)) + direct_optab ot_plus = optab_for_tree_code (tree_code (PLUS_EXPR), + step_vectype, optab_default); + direct_optab ot_minus = optab_for_tree_code (tree_code (MINUS_EXPR), + step_vectype, optab_default); Why tree_code (PLUS_EXPR) instead of just PLUS_EXPR (ditto MINUS_EXPR)? The formatting is off, step_vectype isn't aligned below tree_code. + if (ot_plus == unknown_optab + || ot_minus == unknown_optab + || optab_handler (ot_minus, TYPE_MODE (step_vectype)) == CODE_FOR_nothing + || optab_handler (ot_plus, TYPE_MODE (step_vectype)) == CODE_FOR_nothing) return false; Won't optab_handler just return CODE_FOR_nothing for unknown_optab? Anyway, I think best would be to write it as: if (!target_supports_op_p (step_vectype, PLUS_EXPR, optab_default) || !target_supports_op_p (step_vectype, MINUS_EXPR, optab_default)) return false; Jakub
> + if (ot_plus == unknown_optab > + || ot_minus == unknown_optab > + || optab_handler (ot_minus, TYPE_MODE (step_vectype)) == > CODE_FOR_nothing > + || optab_handler (ot_plus, TYPE_MODE (step_vectype)) == > + CODE_FOR_nothing) > return false; > > Won't optab_handler just return CODE_FOR_nothing for unknown_optab? I was taking the check used in directly_supported_p return (optab != unknown_optab$ && optab_handler (optab, TYPE_MODE (type)) != CODE_FOR_nothing);$ > Anyway, I think best would be to write it as: > if (!target_supports_op_p (step_vectype, PLUS_EXPR, optab_default) > || !target_supports_op_p (step_vectype, MINUS_EXPR, optab_default)) > return false; Looks good to me. Patch attached. Tests running on gcc-11 on aarch64. Ok for 11 once tests come back?
On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 10:46:39AM +0000, Joel Hutton wrote: > > + if (ot_plus == unknown_optab > > + || ot_minus == unknown_optab > > + || optab_handler (ot_minus, TYPE_MODE (step_vectype)) == > > CODE_FOR_nothing > > + || optab_handler (ot_plus, TYPE_MODE (step_vectype)) == > > + CODE_FOR_nothing) > > return false; > > > > Won't optab_handler just return CODE_FOR_nothing for unknown_optab? > > I was taking the check used in directly_supported_p > > return (optab != unknown_optab$ > && optab_handler (optab, TYPE_MODE (type)) != CODE_FOR_nothing);$ > > > Anyway, I think best would be to write it as: > > if (!target_supports_op_p (step_vectype, PLUS_EXPR, optab_default) > > || !target_supports_op_p (step_vectype, MINUS_EXPR, optab_default)) > > return false; > Looks good to me. > > Patch attached. > > Tests running on gcc-11 on aarch64. > > Ok for 11 once tests come back? Yes, thanks. Jakub
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/pr103523.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/pr103523.c new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..736e8936c5f6768bdf098ddc37b2c21ab74ee0df --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/pr103523.c @@ -0,0 +1,8 @@ +/* { dg-do compile } */ +/* { dg-options "-march=armv8-a+sve -mtune=neoverse-v1 -Ofast" } */ + +void d(float *a, float b, int c) { + float e; + for (; c; c--, e += b) + a[c] = e; +} diff --git a/gcc/tree-vect-loop.c b/gcc/tree-vect-loop.c index 7f544ba1fd5198dd32cda05e62382ab2e1e9bb50..f700d5e7ac2c05402407a46113320f79359906fa 100644 --- a/gcc/tree-vect-loop.c +++ b/gcc/tree-vect-loop.c @@ -8065,6 +8065,15 @@ vectorizable_induction (loop_vec_info loop_vinfo, return false; } + step_expr = STMT_VINFO_LOOP_PHI_EVOLUTION_PART (stmt_info); + gcc_assert (step_expr != NULL_TREE); + tree step_vectype = get_same_sized_vectype (TREE_TYPE (step_expr), vectype); + + /* Check for backend support of PLUS/MINUS_EXPR. */ + if (!directly_supported_p (PLUS_EXPR, step_vectype) + || !directly_supported_p (MINUS_EXPR, step_vectype)) + return false; + if (!vec_stmt) /* transformation not required. */ { unsigned inside_cost = 0, prologue_cost = 0; @@ -8124,10 +8133,6 @@ vectorizable_induction (loop_vec_info loop_vinfo, if (dump_enabled_p ()) dump_printf_loc (MSG_NOTE, vect_location, "transform induction phi.\n"); - step_expr = STMT_VINFO_LOOP_PHI_EVOLUTION_PART (stmt_info); - gcc_assert (step_expr != NULL_TREE); - tree step_vectype = get_same_sized_vectype (TREE_TYPE (step_expr), vectype); - pe = loop_preheader_edge (iv_loop); /* Find the first insertion point in the BB. */ basic_block bb = gimple_bb (phi);