On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 12:29 PM Richard Sandiford
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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?
Yes, OK.
Thanks,
Richard.
> > 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);
