Re: Enable the vectorizer at -O2 for GCC 12

2021-09-01 Thread Andrew Stubbs

On 31/08/2021 05:13, Jeff Law wrote:



On 8/30/2021 9:30 PM, Hongtao Liu via Gcc wrote:
On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 11:11 AM Kewen.Lin via Gcc  
wrote:

on 2021/8/30 下午10:11, Bill Schmidt wrote:

On 8/30/21 8:04 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:

There has been a discussion, both off-list and on the gcc-help mailing
list (“Why vectorization didn't turn on by -O2”, spread across several
months), about enabling the auto-vectorizer at -O2, similar to what
Clang does.

I think the review concluded that the very cheap cost model should be
used for that.

Are there any remaining blockers?

Hi Florian,

I don't think I'd characterize it as having blockers, but we are 
continuing to investigate small performance issues that arise with 
very-cheap, including some things that regressed in GCC 12.  Kewen 
Lin is leading that effort.  Kewen, do you feel we have any major 
remaining concerns with this plan?



Hi Florian & Bill,

There are some small performance issues like PR101944 and PR102054, and
still two degraded bmks (P9 520.omnetpp_r -2.41% and P8 526.blender_r
-1.31%) to be investigated/clarified, but since their performance 
numbers

with separated loop and slp vectorization options look neutral, they are
very likely noises.  IMHO I don't think they are/will be blockers.

So I think it's good to turn this on by default for Power.

The intel side is also willing to enable O2 vectorization after
measuring performance impact for SPEC2017 and eembc.
Meanwhile we are investigating PR101908/PR101909/PR101910/PR92740
which are reported O2 vectorization regresses extra benchmarks on
znver and kabylake.
We'd like to see it on for our processor as well.  Though I don't have 
numbers I can share at this time.


AMD GCN probably ought to have it on too, possibly set to maximum ... a 
GPU without vectors is pretty terrible.


Andrew


RE: Enable the vectorizer at -O2 for GCC 12

2021-09-01 Thread Tamar Christina via Gcc
-- edit, added list back in --

Just to add some AArch64 numbers for Spec2017 we see 2.1% overall Geomean 
improvements (all from x264 as expected) with no real regressions (everything 
within variance) and only a 0.06% binary size increase overall (of which x264 
grew 0.15%) using the very cheap cost model.

So we'd be quite keen on this as well.

Cheers,
Tamar

> -Original Message-
> From: Gcc  On Behalf
> Of Florian Weimer via Gcc
> Sent: Monday, August 30, 2021 2:05 PM
> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: ja...@redhat.com; Richard Earnshaw ;
> Segher Boessenkool ; Richard Sandiford
> ; premachandra.malla...@amd.com;
> Hongtao Liu 
> Subject: Enable the vectorizer at -O2 for GCC 12
> 
> There has been a discussion, both off-list and on the gcc-help mailing list
> (“Why vectorization didn't turn on by -O2”, spread across several months),
> about enabling the auto-vectorizer at -O2, similar to what Clang does.
> 
> I think the review concluded that the very cheap cost model should be used
> for that.
> 
> Are there any remaining blockers?
> 
> Thanks,
> Florian



Re: Fix 'hash_table::expand' to destruct stale Value objects

2021-09-01 Thread Martin Sebor via Gcc

On 8/30/21 4:46 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:

Hi!

Ping -- we still need to plug the memory leak; see patch attached, and/or
long discussion here:


Thanks for answering my questions.  I have no concerns with going
forward with the patch as is.  Just a suggestion/request: unless
this patch fixes all the outstanding problems you know of or suspect
in this area (leaks/missing dtor calls) and unless you plan to work
on those in the near future, please open a bug for them with a brain
dump of what you learned.  That should save us time when the day
comes to tackle those.

Martin



On 2021-08-16T14:10:00-0600, Martin Sebor  wrote:

On 8/16/21 6:44 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:

On 2021-08-12T17:15:44-0600, Martin Sebor via Gcc  wrote:

On 8/6/21 10:57 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:

So I'm trying to do some C++...  ;-)

Given:

   /* A map from SSA names or var decls to record fields.  */
   typedef hash_map field_map_t;

   /* For each propagation record type, this is a map from SSA names or var 
decls
  to propagate, to the field in the record type that should be used for
  transmission and reception.  */
   typedef hash_map record_field_map_t;

Thus, that's a 'hash_map>'.  (I may do that,
right?)  Looking through GCC implementation files, very most of all uses
of 'hash_map' boil down to pointer key ('tree', for example) and
pointer/integer value.


Right.  Because most GCC containers rely exclusively on GCC's own
uses for testing, if your use case is novel in some way, chances
are it might not work as intended in all circumstances.

I've wrestled with hash_map a number of times.  A use case that's
close to yours (i.e., a non-trivial value type) is in cp/parser.c:
see class_to_loc_map_t.


Indeed, at the time you sent this email, I already had started looking
into that one!  (The Fortran test cases that I originally analyzed, which
triggered other cases of non-POD/non-trivial destructor, all didn't
result in a memory leak, because the non-trivial constructor doesn't
actually allocate any resources dynamically -- that's indeed different in
this case here.)  ..., and indeed:


(I don't remember if I tested it for leaks
though.  It's used to implement -Wmismatched-tags so compiling
a few tests under Valgrind should show if it does leak.)


... it does leak memory at present.  :-| (See attached commit log for
details for one example.)


(Attached "Fix 'hash_table::expand' to destruct stale Value objects"
again.)


To that effect, to document the current behavior, I propose to
"Add more self-tests for 'hash_map' with Value type with non-trivial
constructor/destructor"


(We've done that in commit e4f16e9f357a38ec702fb69a0ffab9d292a6af9b
"Add more self-tests for 'hash_map' with Value type with non-trivial
constructor/destructor", quickly followed by bug fix
commit bb04a03c6f9bacc890118b9e12b657503093c2f8
"Make 'gcc/hash-map-tests.c:test_map_of_type_with_ctor_and_dtor_expand'
work on 32-bit architectures [PR101959]".


(Also cherry-pick into release branches, eventually?)



Then:

   record_field_map_t field_map ([...]); // see below
   for ([...])
 {
   tree record_type = [...];
   [...]
   bool existed;
   field_map_t &fields
 = field_map.get_or_insert (record_type, &existed);
   gcc_checking_assert (!existed);
   [...]
   for ([...])
 fields.put ([...], [...]);
   [...]
 }
   [stuff that looks up elements from 'field_map']
   field_map.empty ();

This generally works.

If I instantiate 'record_field_map_t field_map (40);', Valgrind is happy.
If however I instantiate 'record_field_map_t field_map (13);' (where '13'
would be the default for 'hash_map'), Valgrind complains:

   2,080 bytes in 10 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 828 of 876
  at 0x483DD99: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:762)
  by 0x175F010: xcalloc (xmalloc.c:162)
  by 0xAF4A2C: hash_table, tree_node*> >::hash_entry, false, 
xcallocator>::hash_table(unsigned long, bool, bool, bool, mem_alloc_origin) (hash-table.h:275)
  by 0x15E0120: hash_map, tree_node*> 
>::hash_map(unsigned long, bool, bool, bool) (hash-map.h:143)
  by 0x15DEE87: hash_map, tree_node*> >, 
simple_hashmap_traits, hash_map, tree_node*> > > >::get_or_insert(tree_node* const&, 
bool*) (hash-map.h:205)
  by 0x15DD52C: execute_omp_oacc_neuter_broadcast() 
(omp-oacc-neuter-broadcast.cc:1371)
  [...]

(That's with '#pragma GCC optimize "O0"' at the top of the 'gcc/*.cc'
file.)

My suspicion was that it is due to the 'field_map' getting resized as it
incrementally grows (and '40' being big enough for that to never happen),
and somehow the non-POD (?) value objects not being properly handled
during that.  Working my way a bit through 'gcc/hash-map.*' and
'gcc/hash-table.*' (but not claiming that I understand all that, off
hand), it seems as if my theory is right: I'm able to plug this

Delivery report

2021-09-01 Thread postmaster
Hello, this is the mail server on mta0.kamatani.jp.

I am sending you this message to inform you on the delivery status of a
message you previously sent.  Immediately below you will find a list of
the affected recipients;  also attached is a Delivery Status Notification
(DSN) report in standard format, as well as the headers of the original
message.

delivery failed; will not continue trying
Reporting-MTA: dns;mta0.kamatani.jp
X-PowerMTA-VirtualMTA: pmta-vmta0
Received-From-MTA: dns;grnet.gr (45.154.4.41)
Arrival-Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2021 21:26:54 -0500

Final-Recipient: rfc822;gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Action: failed
Status: 5.7.1 (delivery not authorized)
Remote-MTA: dns;gcc.gnu.org (8.43.85.97)
Diagnostic-Code: smtp;550 5.7.1 Blocked by SpamAssassin
X-PowerMTA-BounceCategory: spam-related
From: Jemaica
To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: RE: 1x40' container
Date: 01 Sep 2021 19:26:52 -0700
Message-ID: <20210901192652.0b735858203c9...@gcc.gnu.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="=_NextPart_000_0012_718FE6A2.690F274E"