> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>
> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2023 2:18 PM
> To: Tamar Christina <tamar.christ...@arm.com>
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; nd <n...@arm.com>; j...@ventanamicro.com
> Subject: RE: [PATCH 7/21]middle-end: update IV update code to support early
> breaks and arbitrary exits
>
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2023, Tamar Christina wrote:
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2023 1:36 PM
> > > To: Tamar Christina <tamar.christ...@arm.com>
> > > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; nd <n...@arm.com>;
> j...@ventanamicro.com
> > > Subject: RE: [PATCH 7/21]middle-end: update IV update code to
> > > support early breaks and arbitrary exits
> > >
> > > On Thu, 16 Nov 2023, Tamar Christina wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Perhaps I'm missing something here?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > OK, so I refreshed my mind of what
> > > > > > > > > vect_update_ivs_after_vectorizer
> > > > > > > does.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I still do not understand the (complexity of the) patch.
> > > > > > > > > Basically the function computes the new value of the IV
> > > > > > > > > "from scratch" based on the number of scalar iterations
> > > > > > > > > of the vector loop,
> > > > > the 'niter'
> > > > > > > > > argument. I would have expected that for the early
> > > > > > > > > exits we either pass in a different 'niter' or alternatively a
> 'niter_adjustment'.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But for an early exit there's no static value for adjusted
> > > > > > > > niter, since you don't know which iteration you exited from.
> > > > > > > > Unlike the normal exit when you know if you get there
> > > > > > > > you've done all possible
> > > > > > > iterations.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So you must compute the scalar iteration count on the exit
> > > > > > > > itself.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ? You do not need the actual scalar iteration you exited
> > > > > > > (you don't compute that either), you need the scalar
> > > > > > > iteration the vector iteration started with when it exited
> > > > > > > prematurely and that's readily
> > > > > available?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For a normal exit yes, not for an early exit no?
> > > > > > niters_vector_mult_vf is only valid for the main exit.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There's the unadjusted scalar count, which is what it's using
> > > > > > to adjust it to the final count. Unless I'm missing something?
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah, of course - niters_vector_mult_vf is for the countable exit.
> > > > > For the early exits we can't precompute the scalar iteration value.
> > > > > But that then means we should compute the appropriate
> "continuation"
> > > > > as live value of the vectorized IVs even when they were not
> > > > > originally used outside of the loop. I don't see how we can
> > > > > express this in terms of the scalar IVs in the (not yet)
> > > > > vectorized loop - similar to the reduction case you are going to
> > > > > end up with the wrong values
> > > here.
> > > > >
> > > > > That said, I've for a long time wanted to preserve the original
> > > > > control IV also for the vector code (leaving any "optimization"
> > > > > to IVOPTs there), that would enable us to compute the correct
> > > > > "niters_vector_mult_vf" based on that IV.
> > > > >
> > > > > So given we cannot use the scalar IVs you have to handle all
> > > > > inductions (besides the main exit control IV) in
> > > > > vectorizable_live_operation
> > > I think.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > That's what I currently do, that's why there was the
> > > > if (STMT_VINFO_LIVE_P (phi_info))
> > > > continue;
> > >
> > > Yes, but that only works for the inductions marked so. We'd need to
> > > mark the others as well, but only for the early exits.
> > >
> > > > although I don't understand why we use the scalar count, I
> > > > suppose the reasoning is that we don't really want to keep it
> > > > around, and referencing
> > > it forces it to be kept?
> > >
> > > Referencing it will cause the scalar compute to be retained, but
> > > since we do not adjust the scalar compute during vectorization (but
> > > expect it to be dead) the scalar compute will compute the wrong
> > > thing (as shown by the reduction example - I suspect inductions will
> > > suffer
> from the same problem).
> > >
> > > > At the moment it just does `init + (final - init) * vf` which is
> > > > correct no?
> > >
> > > The issue is that 'final' is not computed correctly in the
> > > vectorized loop. This formula might work for affine evolutions of course.
> > >
> > > Extracting the correct value from the vectorized induction would be
> > > the preferred solution.
> >
> > Ok, so I should be able to just mark IVs as live during process_use if
> > there are multiple exits right? Since it's just gonna be unused on the
> > main exit since we use niters?
> >
> > Because since it's the PHI inside the loop that needs to be marked
> > live I can't just do it for a specific exits no?
> >
> > If I create a copy of the PHI node during peeling for use in early
> > exits and mark it live it won't work no?
>
> I guess I wouldn't actually mark it STMT_VINFO_LIVE_P but somehow arrange
> vectorizable_live_operation to be called, possibly adding a edge argument to
> that as well.
>
> Maybe the thing to do for the moment is to reject vectorization with early
> breaks if there's any (non-STMT_VINFO_LIVE_P?) induction or reduction
> besides the main counting IV one you can already special-case?
Ok so I did a quick hack with:
if (!virtual_operand_p (PHI_RESULT (phi))
&& !STMT_VINFO_LIVE_P (phi_info))
{
use_operand_p use_p;
imm_use_iterator imm_iter;
bool non_exit_use = false;
FOR_EACH_IMM_USE_FAST (use_p, imm_iter, PHI_RESULT (phi))
if (!flow_bb_inside_loop_p (loop, gimple_bb (USE_STMT (use_p))))
for (auto exit : get_loop_exit_edges (loop))
{
if (exit == LOOP_VINFO_IV_EXIT (loop_vinfo))
continue;
if (gimple_bb (USE_STMT (use_p)) != exit->dest)
{
non_exit_use = true;
goto fail;
}
}
fail:
if (non_exit_use)
return false;
}
And it does seem to still allow all the cases I want. I've placed this in
vect_can_advance_ivs_p.
Does this cover what you meant?
Thanks,
Tamar
>
> Richard.
>
> > Tamar
> > >
> > > > Also you missed the question below about how to avoid the creation
> > > > of the block, You ok with changing that?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Tamar
> > > >
> > > > > Or for now disable early-break for inductions that are not the
> > > > > main exit control IV (in vect_can_advance_ivs_p)?
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It seems your change handles different kinds of
> > > > > > > > > inductions
> > > differently.
> > > > > > > > > Specifically
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > bool ivtemp = gimple_cond_lhs (cond) == iv_var;
> > > > > > > > > if (restart_loop && ivtemp)
> > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > type = TREE_TYPE (gimple_phi_result (phi));
> > > > > > > > > ni = build_int_cst (type, vf);
> > > > > > > > > if (inversed_iv)
> > > > > > > > > ni = fold_build2 (MINUS_EXPR, type, ni,
> > > > > > > > > fold_convert (type, step_expr));
> > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > it looks like for the exit test IV we use either 'VF' or 'VF
> > > > > > > > > - step'
> > > > > > > > > as the new value. That seems to be very odd special
> > > > > > > > > casing for unknown reasons. And while you adjust
> > > > > > > > > vec_step_op_add, you don't adjust
> > > > > > > > > vect_peel_nonlinear_iv_init (maybe not supported -
> > > > > > > > > better assert
> > > > > > > here).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The VF case is for a normal "non-inverted" loop, where if
> > > > > > > > you take an early exit you know that you have to do at most VF
> iterations.
> > > > > > > > The VF
> > > > > > > > - step is to account for the inverted loop control flow
> > > > > > > > where you exit after adjusting the IV already by + step.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But doesn't that assume the IV counts from niter to zero? I
> > > > > > > don't see this special case is actually necessary, no?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I needed it because otherwise the scalar loop iterates one
> > > > > > iteration too little So I got a miscompile with the inverter
> > > > > > loop stuff. I'll look at it again perhaps It can be solved
> > > > > > differently.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Peeling doesn't matter here, since you know you were able
> > > > > > > > to do a vector iteration so it's safe to do VF iterations.
> > > > > > > > So having peeled doesn't affect the remaining iters count.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Also the vec_step_op_add case will keep the original
> > > > > > > > > scalar IV live even when it is a vectorized induction.
> > > > > > > > > The code recomputing the value from scratch avoids this.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > /* For non-main exit create an intermediat edge to
> > > > > > > > > get any updated
> > > > > iv
> > > > > > > > > calculations. */
> > > > > > > > > if (needs_interm_block
> > > > > > > > > && !iv_block
> > > > > > > > > && (!gimple_seq_empty_p (stmts) ||
> > > > > > > > > !gimple_seq_empty_p
> > > > > > > > > (new_stmts)))
> > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > iv_block = split_edge (update_e);
> > > > > > > > > update_e = single_succ_edge (update_e->dest);
> > > > > > > > > last_gsi = gsi_last_bb (iv_block);
> > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > this is also odd, can we adjust the API instead? I
> > > > > > > > > suppose this is because your computation uses the
> > > > > > > > > original loop IV, if you based the computation off the
> > > > > > > > > initial value only this might not be
> > > > > necessary?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No, on the main exit the code updates the value in the
> > > > > > > > loop header and puts the Calculation in the merge block.
> > > > > > > > This works because it only needs to consume PHI nodes in
> > > > > > > > the merge block and things like niters are
> > > > > > > adjusted in the guard block.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For an early exit, we don't have a guard block, only the merge
> block.
> > > > > > > > We have to update the PHI nodes in that block, but can't
> > > > > > > > do so since you can't produce a value and consume it in a
> > > > > > > > PHI node in the same
> > > > > BB.
> > > > > > > > So we need to create the block to put the values in for
> > > > > > > > use in the merge block. Because there's no "guard" block for
> > > > > > > > early
> exits.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ? then compute niters in that block as well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We can't since it'll not be reachable through the right edge.
> > > > > > What we can do if you want is slightly change peeling, we
> > > > > > currently peel
> > > as:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > \ \ /
> > > > > > E1 E2 Normal exit
> > > > > > \ | |
> > > > > > \ | Guard
> > > > > > \ | |
> > > > > > Merge block
> > > > > > |
> > > > > > Pre Header
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If we instead peel as:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > \ \ /
> > > > > > E1 E2 Normal exit
> > > > > > \ | |
> > > > > > Exit join Guard
> > > > > > \ | |
> > > > > > Merge block
> > > > > > |
> > > > > > Pre Header
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We can use the exit join block. This would also mean
> > > > > > vect_update_ivs_after_vectorizer Doesn't need to iterate over
> > > > > > all exits and only really needs to adjust the phi nodes Coming
> > > > > > out of the exit join
> > > > > and guard block.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Does this work for you?
> > >
> > > Yeah, I think that would work. But I'd like to sort out the
> > > correctness details of the IV update itself before sorting out this code
> placement detail.
> > >
> > > Richard.
> > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Tamar
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The API can be adjusted by always creating the empty block
> > > > > > > > either during
> > > > > > > peeling.
> > > > > > > > That would prevent us from having to do anything special here.
> > > > > > > > Would that work better? Or I can do it in the loop that
> > > > > > > > iterates over the exits to before the call to
> > > > > > > > vect_update_ivs_after_vectorizer, which I think
> > > > > > > might be more consistent.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That said, I wonder why we cannot simply pass in an
> > > > > > > > > adjusted niter which would be niters_vector_mult_vf - vf
> > > > > > > > > and be done with
> > > that?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We can ofcourse not have this and recompute it from niters
> > > > > > > > itself, however this does affect the epilog code layout.
> > > > > > > > Particularly knowing the static number if iterations left
> > > > > > > > causes it to usually unroll the loop and share some of the
> > > > > > > > computations. i.e. the scalar code is often more
> > > > > > > efficient.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The computation would be niters_vector_mult_vf -
> > > > > > > > iters_done * vf, since the value put Here is the remaining
> > > > > > > > iteration
> count.
> > > > > > > > It's static for early
> > > > > > > exits.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well, it might be "static" in that it doesn't really matter
> > > > > > > what you use for the epilog main IV initial value as long as
> > > > > > > you are sure you're not going to take that exit as you are
> > > > > > > sure we're going to take one of the early exits. So yeah,
> > > > > > > the special code is probably OK, but it needs a better
> > > > > > > comment and as said the structure of
> > > > > vect_update_ivs_after_vectorizer is a bit hard to follow now.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As said an important part for optimization is to not keep
> > > > > > > the scalar IVs live in the vector loop.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But can do whatever you prefer here. Let me know what you
> > > > > > > > prefer for the
> > > > > > > above.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > Tamar
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > Richard.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > Tamar
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > It has to do this since you have to perform the
> > > > > > > > > > > > side effects for the non-matching elements still.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Tamar
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + if (STMT_VINFO_LIVE_P (phi_info))
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + continue;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + /* For early break the final loop IV is:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + init + (final - init) * vf which takes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +into account
> > > > > peeling
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + values and non-single steps. The main
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +exit
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +use
> > > > > > > > > niters
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + since if you exit from the main exit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +you've
> > > > > done
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +all
> > > > > > > > > vector
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + iterations. For an early exit we don't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +know
> > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +we
> > > > > > > > > exit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +so
> > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + must re-calculate this on the exit. */
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + tree start_expr = gimple_phi_result (phi);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + off = fold_build2 (MINUS_EXPR, stype,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + fold_convert (stype,
> > > > > start_expr),
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + fold_convert (stype,
> > > > > init_expr));
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + /* Now adjust for VF to get the final
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > iteration value.
> > > > > */
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + off = fold_build2 (MULT_EXPR, stype, off,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + build_int_cst (stype,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > vf));
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + }
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + else
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + off = fold_build2 (MULT_EXPR, stype,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + fold_convert (stype,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > niters),
> > > > > step_expr);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > if (POINTER_TYPE_P (type))
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ni = fold_build_pointer_plus (init_expr,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > off);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > else
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -2238,6 +2286,8 @@
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > vect_update_ivs_after_vectorizer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (loop_vec_info
> > > > > > > > > > > > > loop_vinfo,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > /* Don't bother call
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > vect_peel_nonlinear_iv_init. */
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > else if (induction_type == vect_step_op_neg)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ni = init_expr;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + else if (restart_loop)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + continue;
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > This looks all a bit complicated - why wouldn't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > we simply always use the PHI result when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 'restart_loop'?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Isn't that the correct old start value in
> > > > > > > > > > > all cases?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > else
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ni = vect_peel_nonlinear_iv_init (&stmts,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > init_expr,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > niters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > step_expr,
> > > @@ -
> > > > > > > 2245,9 +2295,20 @@
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > vect_update_ivs_after_vectorizer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (loop_vec_info
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > loop_vinfo,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > var = create_tmp_var (type, "tmp");
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - last_gsi = gsi_last_bb (exit_bb);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > gimple_seq new_stmts = NULL;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ni_name = force_gimple_operand (ni,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &new_stmts, false, var);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + /* For non-main exit create an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + intermediat edge to get any
> > > > > > > > > updated iv
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + calculations. */
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + if (needs_interm_block
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + && !iv_block
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + && (!gimple_seq_empty_p (stmts) ||
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +!gimple_seq_empty_p
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (new_stmts)))
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + iv_block = split_edge (update_e);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + update_e = single_succ_edge (update_e->dest);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + last_gsi = gsi_last_bb (iv_block);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + }
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > /* Exit_bb shouldn't be empty. */
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > if (!gsi_end_p (last_gsi))
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -3342,8 +3403,26 @@ vect_do_peeling
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (loop_vec_info loop_vinfo, tree
> > > > > > > > > > > > > niters, tree nitersm1,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > niters_vector_mult_vf steps. */
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > gcc_checking_assert
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (vect_can_advance_ivs_p
> > > > > (loop_vinfo));
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > update_e = skip_vector ? e :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > loop_preheader_edge
> > > (epilog);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - vect_update_ivs_after_vectorizer (loop_vinfo,
> > > > > > > > > niters_vector_mult_vf,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - update_e);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + if (LOOP_VINFO_EARLY_BREAKS (loop_vinfo))
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + update_e = single_succ_edge (e->dest);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + bool inversed_iv
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + = !vect_is_loop_exit_latch_pred
> > > > > (LOOP_VINFO_IV_EXIT
> > > > > > > > > (loop_vinfo),
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + LOOP_VINFO_LOOP
> > > > > > > > > (loop_vinfo));
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You are computing this here and in
> > > > > > > vect_update_ivs_after_vectorizer?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + /* Update the main exit first. */
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + vect_update_ivs_after_vectorizer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + (loop_vinfo, vf,
> > > > > > > > > > > niters_vector_mult_vf,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + update_e,
> > > > > inversed_iv);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + /* And then update the early exits. */
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + for (auto exit : get_loop_exit_edges (loop))
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + if (exit == LOOP_VINFO_IV_EXIT (loop_vinfo))
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + continue;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + vect_update_ivs_after_vectorizer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +(loop_vinfo, vf,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > niters_vector_mult_vf,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + exit, true);
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ... why does the same not work here? Wouldn't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the proper condition be !dominated_by_p
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (CDI_DOMINATORS,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > exit->src, LOOP_VINFO_IV_EXIT
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (loop_vinfo)->src) or similar? That is, whether
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the exit is at or after the main IV exit?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (consider having
> > > > > > > > > > > > > two)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > + }
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > if (skip_epilog)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> SUSE Software
> > > > > > > > > > > Solutions Germany GmbH, Frankenstrasse 146, 90461
> > > > > > > > > > > Nuernberg, Germany;
> > > > > > > > > > > GF: Ivo Totev, Andrew McDonald, Werner Knoblich;
> > > > > > > > > > > (HRB 36809, AG
> > > > > > > > > > > Nuernberg)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> SUSE Software
> > > > > > > > > Solutions Germany GmbH, Frankenstrasse 146, 90461
> > > > > > > > > Nuernberg, Germany;
> > > > > > > > > GF: Ivo Totev, Andrew McDonald, Werner Knoblich; (HRB
> > > > > > > > > 36809, AG
> > > > > > > > > Nuernberg)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> SUSE Software Solutions
> > > > > > > Germany GmbH, Frankenstrasse 146, 90461 Nuernberg, Germany;
> > > > > > > GF: Ivo Totev, Andrew McDonald, Werner Knoblich; (HRB 36809,
> > > > > > > AG
> > > > > > > Nuernberg)
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> SUSE Software Solutions
> > > > > Germany GmbH, Frankenstrasse 146, 90461 Nuernberg, Germany;
> > > > > GF: Ivo Totev, Andrew McDonald, Werner Knoblich; (HRB 36809, AG
> > > > > Nuernberg)
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>
> > > SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Frankenstrasse 146, 90461
> > > Nuernberg, Germany;
> > > GF: Ivo Totev, Andrew McDonald, Werner Knoblich; (HRB 36809, AG
> > > Nuernberg)
> >
>
> --
> Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>
> SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH,
> Frankenstrasse 146, 90461 Nuernberg, Germany;
> GF: Ivo Totev, Andrew McDonald, Werner Knoblich; (HRB 36809, AG
> Nuernberg)
