On 14 June 2011 13:02, Richard Guenther <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Ira Rosen <ira.ro...@linaro.org> wrote: >> On 10 June 2011 12:14, Richard Guenther <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> In the end I think we should not generate the pattern stmt during >>> pattern matching but only mark the relevant statements with a >>> pattern kind. Say, for each pattern we have a "main" statement >>> that has related stmts belonging to the pattern that define uses >>> of the "main" statement - mark those to refer to that "main" statement. >>> For that "main" statement simply record an enum value, like, >>> widening_mult. Then only at vectorized statement >>> generation time actually generate the vectorized form of the >>> pattern statement. >> >> I ended up with the following: during pattern detection a new scalar >> pattern statement is created but not inserted into the code, it is >> only recorded as a related statement of the last statement in the >> detected pattern. Every time the last statement is being >> analyzed/transformed, we switch to the pattern statement instead. It >> is much more difficult just to mark the last stmt with an enum value, >> since we have to retrieve the relevant operands every time. >> >> I am not sure if we need to free the pattern stmt at the end. >> >> Bootstrapped and now testing on powerpc64-suse-linux (tested >> vectorizer testsuite on powerpc64-suse-linux and x86_64-suse-linux. >> >> What do you think? > > /* Mark the stmts that are involved in the pattern. */ > - gsi_insert_before (&si, pattern_stmt, GSI_SAME_STMT); > set_vinfo_for_stmt (pattern_stmt, > new_stmt_vec_info (pattern_stmt, loop_vinfo, NULL)); > + gimple_set_bb (pattern_stmt, gimple_bb (stmt)); > > do you really need this?
Yes, there are a lot of uses of gimple_bb (stmt). Otherwise, we'd have to check there that bb exists (or that this is not a pattern stmt) and use the bb of the original statement if not. > Otherwise it looks reasonable. Btw, > we can probably remove the simple DCE done in > slpeel_tree_peel_loop_to_edge (remove_dead_stmts_from_loop) > with this patch. I'll try that. Thanks, Ira > > Thanks, > Richard. > >> Thanks, >> Ira >> >> ChangeLog: >> >> * tree-vect-loop.c (vect_determine_vectorization_factor): Don't >> remove irrelevant pattern statements. For irrelevant statements >> check if it is the last statement of a detected pattern, use >> corresponding pattern statement instead. >> (destroy_loop_vec_info): No need to remove pattern statements, >> only free stmt_vec_info. >> (vect_transform_loop): For irrelevant statements check if it is >> the last statement of a detected pattern, use corresponding >> pattern statement instead. >> * tree-vect-patterns.c (vect_pattern_recog_1): Don't insert >> pattern statements. Set basic block for the new statement. >> (vect_pattern_recog): Update documentation. >> * tree-vect-stmts.c (vect_mark_stmts_to_be_vectorized): Scan >> operands of pattern statements. >> (vectorizable_call): Fix printing. In case of a pattern statement >> use the lhs of the original statement when creating a dummy >> statement to replace the original call. >> (vect_analyze_stmt): For irrelevant statements check if it is >> the last statement of a detected pattern, use corresponding >> pattern statement instead. >> * tree-vect-slp.c (vect_schedule_slp_instance): For pattern >> statements use gsi of the original statement. >> >
