On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 12:50 PM Hanke Zhang <hkzhang...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Richard:
>
> Thanks for your advice. But when I try a simpler example like the one
> below before looking at the code, GCC still does nothing.
>
> int main() {
> int width;
> scanf("%d", &width);
> int sum = 0;
> for (int i = 0; i < width; i++) sum += i;
> printf("%d\n", sum);
> }
>
> I tried O3 and LTO, but still the same. So I'd like to ask why, or am
> I doing something wrong?
-fdump-tree-sccp-details-scev reveals
(set_scalar_evolution
instantiated_below = 5
(scalar = sum_9)
(scalar_evolution = {0, +, {1, +, 1}_1}_1))
)
(chrec_apply
(varying_loop = 1)
(chrec = {0, +, {1, +, 1}_1}_1)
(x = (unsigned int) width.0_12 + 4294967295)
(res = scev_not_known))
so we don't know how to apply a variable number of iterations to
the affine expression {0, +, {1, +, 1}_1}_1, that is, we do not
know how to compute the final value of the reduction.
For a constant, say width == 100 we do:
(set_scalar_evolution
instantiated_below = 2
(scalar = sum_6)
(scalar_evolution = {0, +, {1, +, 1}_1}_1))
)
(chrec_apply
(varying_loop = 1)
(chrec = {0, +, {1, +, 1}_1}_1)
(x = 99)
(res = 4950))
Richard.
>
> Thanks
> Hanke Zhang
>
> Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> 于2023年10月19日周四 20:00写道：
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 2:39 PM Hanke Zhang <hkzhang...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Richard
> > > I get it, thank you again.
> > >
> > > And I got another problem, so I'd like ask it by the way. Can the left
> > > shift of the induction variable in a loop be optimized as a constant?
> > > Like the code below:
> > >
> > > int ans = 0;
> > > int width = rand() % 16;
> > > for (int j = 0; j < width; j++)
> > > ans += 1 << (j + width)
> > >
> > > into:
> > >
> > > int width = rand() % 16;
> > > ans = (1 << (2 * width) - (1 << width));
> > >
> > > I came across a more complex version of that and found that gcc
> > > doesn't seem to handle it, so wanted to write a pass myself to
> > > optimize it.
> > >
> > > I got two questions here. Does GCC have such optimizations? If I want
> > > to do my own optimization, where should I put it? Put it behind the
> > > pass_iv_optimize?
> >
> > GCC has the final value replacement pass (pass_scev_cprop) doing these
> > kind of transforms. Since 'ans' does not have an affine evolution this
> > case would need to be pattern matched (there are some existing pattern
> > matchings in the pass).
> >
> > > Thanks
> > > Hanke Zhang
> > >
> > > Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> 于2023年10月17日周二 20:00写道：
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 1:54 PM Hanke Zhang <hkzhang...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> 于2023年10月17日周二 17:26写道：
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 2:18 PM Hanke Zhang via Gcc
> > > > > > <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi, I'm recently working on vectorization of GCC. I'm stuck in a
> > > > > > > small
> > > > > > > problem and would like to ask for advice.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For example, for the following code:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > int main() {
> > > > > > > int size = 1000;
> > > > > > > int *foo = malloc(sizeof(int) * size);
> > > > > > > int c1 = rand(), t1 = rand();
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > for (int i = 0; i < size; i++) {
> > > > > > > if (foo[i] & c1) {
> > > > > > > foo[i] = t1;
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > // prevents the loop above from being optimized
> > > > > > > for (int i = 0; i < size; i++) {
> > > > > > > printf("%d", foo[i]);
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > First of all, the if statement block in the loop will be
> > > > > > > converted to
> > > > > > > a MASK_STORE through if-conversion optimization. But after
> > > > > > > tree-vector, it will still become a branched form. The part of the
> > > > > > > final disassembly structure probably looks like below(Using IDA
> > > > > > > to do
> > > > > > > this), and you can see that there is still such a branch 'if (
> > > > > > > !_ZF )'
> > > > > > > in it, which will lead to low efficiency.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > while ( 1 )
> > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > __asm
> > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > vpand ymm0, ymm2, ymmword ptr [rax]
> > > > > > > vpcmpeqd ymm0, ymm0, ymm1
> > > > > > > vpcmpeqd ymm0, ymm0, ymm1
> > > > > > > vptest ymm0, ymm0
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > if ( !_ZF )
> > > > > > > break;
> > > > > > > _RAX += 8;
> > > > > > > if ( _RAX == v9 )
> > > > > > > goto LABEL_5;
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > __asm { vpmaskmovd ymmword ptr [rax], ymm0, ymm3 }
> > > > > > > _RAX += 8;
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > while ( _RAX != v9 );
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why can't we just replace the vptest and if statement with some
> > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > instructions like vpblendvb so that it can be faster? Or is there
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > good way to do that?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The branch is added by optimize_mask_stores after vectorization
> > > > > > because
> > > > > > fully masked (disabled) masked stores can incur a quite heavy
> > > > > > penalty on
> > > > > > some architectures when fault assists (read-only pages, but also
> > > > > > COW pages)
> > > > > > are ran into. All the microcode handling needs to possibly be
> > > > > > carried out
> > > > > > multiple times, for each such access to the same page. That can
> > > > > > cause
> > > > > > a 1000x slowdown when you hit this case. Thus every masked store
> > > > > > is replaced by
> > > > > >
> > > > > > if (mask != 0)
> > > > > > masked_store ();
> > > > > >
> > > > > > and this is an optimization (which itself has a small cost).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Richard.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah, I know that and I have seen the code of optimize_mask_store().
> > > > > And the main problem here is that when multiple MASK_STORE appear in
> > > > > the same loop, many branches will appear, resulting in a decrease in
> > > > > overall efficiency.
> > > > >
> > > > > And my original idea is that why can't we replace MASK_STORE with more
> > > > > effective SIMD instructions because icc can do much better in this
> > > > > case.
> > > >
> > > > ICC probably doesn't care for the case where foo[] isn't writable. In
> > > > fact for the case at hand we see it comes from malloc() which we
> > > > can assume to return writable memory I guess. That means if-conversion
> > > > can treat the unconditional read as a way to also allow to speculate
> > > > the write (with -fallow-store-data-races).
> > > >
> > > > Note there's currently no pointer analysis that tracks writability.
> > > >
> > > > > Then I give it up, because the ability to analyze vectorization
> > > > > of gcc is not as good as icc and my ability does not support me
> > > > > modifying this part of the code.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks very much for your reply.
> > > >
> > > > You're welcome.
> > > >
> > > > Richard.
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > Hanke Zhang
