Richard Biener <[email protected]> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 1:09 PM Richard Sandiford
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Richard Biener <[email protected]> writes:
>> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 12:07 PM Richard Sandiford
>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> This patch adds a pattern_stmt_p field to stmt_vec_info, so that it's
>> >> possible to tell whether the statement is a pattern statement without
>> >> referring to other statements. The new field goes in what was
>> >> previously a hole in the structure, so the size is the same as before.
>> >
>> > Not sure what the advantage is? is_pattern_stmt_p () looks nicer
>> > than ->is_pattern_p
>>
>> I can keep the function wrapper if you prefer that. But having a
>> statement "know" whether it's a pattern stmt makes things like
>> freeing stmt_vec_infos simpler (see later patches in the series).
>
> Ah, ok.
>
>> It should also be cheaper to test, but that's much more minor.
>
> So please keep the wrapper.
Like this?
> I guess at some point we should decide what to do with all
> the STMT_VINFO_ macros (and the others, {LOOP,BB}_ stuff
> is already used inconsistently).
Yeah...
2018-07-26 Richard Sandiford <[email protected]>
gcc/
* tree-vectorizer.h (_stmt_vec_info::pattern_stmt_p): New field.
(is_pattern_stmt_p): Use it.
* tree-vect-patterns.c (vect_init_pattern_stmt): Set pattern_stmt_p
on pattern statements.
Index: gcc/tree-vectorizer.h
===================================================================
--- gcc/tree-vectorizer.h 2018-07-26 11:28:18.000000000 +0100
+++ gcc/tree-vectorizer.h 2018-07-26 11:28:19.072951054 +0100
@@ -791,6 +791,12 @@ struct _stmt_vec_info {
/* Stmt is part of some pattern (computation idiom) */
bool in_pattern_p;
+ /* True if the statement was created during pattern recognition as
+ part of the replacement for RELATED_STMT. This implies that the
+ statement isn't part of any basic block, although for convenience
+ its gimple_bb is the same as for RELATED_STMT. */
+ bool pattern_stmt_p;
+
/* Is this statement vectorizable or should it be skipped in (partial)
vectorization. */
bool vectorizable;
@@ -1157,8 +1163,7 @@ get_later_stmt (stmt_vec_info stmt1_info
static inline bool
is_pattern_stmt_p (stmt_vec_info stmt_info)
{
- stmt_vec_info related_stmt_info = STMT_VINFO_RELATED_STMT (stmt_info);
- return related_stmt_info && STMT_VINFO_IN_PATTERN_P (related_stmt_info);
+ return stmt_info->pattern_stmt_p;
}
/* Return true if BB is a loop header. */
Index: gcc/tree-vect-patterns.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/tree-vect-patterns.c 2018-07-26 11:28:18.000000000 +0100
+++ gcc/tree-vect-patterns.c 2018-07-26 11:28:19.068951168 +0100
@@ -108,6 +108,7 @@ vect_init_pattern_stmt (gimple *pattern_
pattern_stmt_info = orig_stmt_info->vinfo->add_stmt (pattern_stmt);
gimple_set_bb (pattern_stmt, gimple_bb (orig_stmt_info->stmt));
+ pattern_stmt_info->pattern_stmt_p = true;
STMT_VINFO_RELATED_STMT (pattern_stmt_info) = orig_stmt_info;
STMT_VINFO_DEF_TYPE (pattern_stmt_info)
= STMT_VINFO_DEF_TYPE (orig_stmt_info);
