On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> I am trying to reduce cost of repeated call of if-conversion for
> epilogue vectorization. I'd like to clarify your recommendation -
> should I design additional support for versioning in
> vect_do_peeling_for_loop_bound or ligh
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> I am trying to reduce cost of repeated call of if-conversion for
> epilogue vectorization. I'd like to clarify your recommendation -
> should I design additional support for versioning in
> vect_do_peeling_for_loop_bound or ligh
Hi Jeff,
I am trying to reduce cost of repeated call of if-conversion for
epilogue vectorization. I'd like to clarify your recommendation -
should I design additional support for versioning in
vect_do_peeling_for_loop_bound or lightweight version of if-conversion
is sufficient? Any help in clarifi
On 08/01/2016 03:09 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
2016-07-26 18:38 GMT+03:00 Ilya Enkovich :
2016-07-26 18:26 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law :
On 07/26/2016 03:57 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
Ilya, what's the fundamental reason why we need to run
if-conversion again? Yes, I know you want to if-convert the
epilog
2016-07-26 18:38 GMT+03:00 Ilya Enkovich :
> 2016-07-26 18:26 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law :
>> On 07/26/2016 03:57 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
Ilya, what's the fundamental reason why we need to run
if-conversion again? Yes, I know you want to if-convert the
epilogue, but why?
2016-07-26 18:26 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law :
> On 07/26/2016 03:57 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Ilya, what's the fundamental reason why we need to run
>>> if-conversion again? Yes, I know you want to if-convert the
>>> epilogue, but why?
>>>
>>> What are the consequences of not doing if-conversion
On 07/26/2016 03:57 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
Ilya, what's the fundamental reason why we need to run
if-conversion again? Yes, I know you want to if-convert the
epilogue, but why?
What are the consequences of not doing if-conversion on the
epilogue? Presumably we miss a vectorization opportunity
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> 2016-07-26 14:51 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener :
>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Ilya Enkovich
>> wrote:
>>> 2016-07-26 0:08 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law :
On 07/25/2016 12:32 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On July 25, 2016 8:01:17 PM GMT
2016-07-26 14:51 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener :
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Ilya Enkovich
> wrote:
>> 2016-07-26 0:08 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law :
>>> On 07/25/2016 12:32 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On July 25, 2016 8:01:17 PM GMT+02:00, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> On 07/22/2016 05:36 AM, Ri
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> 2016-07-26 0:08 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law :
>> On 07/25/2016 12:32 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
>>> On July 25, 2016 8:01:17 PM GMT+02:00, Jeff Law wrote:
On 07/22/2016 05:36 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> The thing that needs wo
2016-07-26 0:08 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law :
> On 07/25/2016 12:32 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On July 25, 2016 8:01:17 PM GMT+02:00, Jeff Law wrote:
>>>
>>> On 07/22/2016 05:36 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
The thing that needs work I think is re-running of if-conversion.
>>>
>>> I wonder if we
On 07/25/2016 12:32 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On July 25, 2016 8:01:17 PM GMT+02:00, Jeff Law wrote:
On 07/22/2016 05:36 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
The thing that needs work I think is re-running of if-conversion.
I wonder if we could revamp if-conversion to work on a subset of the
CFG? I ca
On July 25, 2016 8:01:17 PM GMT+02:00, Jeff Law wrote:
>On 07/22/2016 05:36 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> The thing that needs work I think is re-running of if-conversion.
>I wonder if we could revamp if-conversion to work on a subset of the
>CFG? I can see that potentially being useful in other
On 07/22/2016 05:36 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
The thing that needs work I think is re-running of if-conversion.
I wonder if we could revamp if-conversion to work on a subset of the
CFG? I can see that potentially being useful in other contexts. Would
that work for you Richi?
We've already
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 07/21/2016 03:15 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>>
>> In my list I see #1, #4, and #5 are not approved.
>
> So I think Richi wanted to see param control for the new options; Joseph
> wanted the new options properly documented in invoke.texi; I had a
On 07/21/2016 03:15 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
In my list I see #1, #4, and #5 are not approved.
So I think Richi wanted to see param control for the new options; Joseph
wanted the new options properly documented in invoke.texi; I had a few
higher level questions which you answered. Your update
In my list I see #1, #4, and #5 are not approved.
Thanks,
Ilya
2016-07-20 19:24 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law :
> On 07/20/2016 08:37 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>
>> Here is an updated version.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ilya
>> --
>> gcc/
>>
>> 2016-07-20 Ilya Enkovich
>>
>> * dbgcnt.def (vect_tail_combine)
On 07/20/2016 08:37 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
Here is an updated version.
Thanks,
Ilya
--
gcc/
2016-07-20 Ilya Enkovich
* dbgcnt.def (vect_tail_combine): New.
* params.def (PARAM_VECT_COST_INCREASE_COMBINE_THRESHOLD): New.
* tree-vect-data-refs.c (vect_get_new_ssa_na
On 14 Jul 16:04, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 06/28/2016 06:24 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>
> >
> >Here is an updated patch version.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Ilya
> >--
> >gcc/
> >
> >+/* Function vect_gen_loop_masks.
> >+
> >+ Create masks to mask a loop described by LOOP_VINFO. Masks
> >+ are created accord
On 06/28/2016 06:24 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
Here is an updated patch version.
Thanks,
Ilya
--
gcc/
2016-05-28 Ilya Enkovich
* dbgcnt.def (vect_tail_combine): New.
* params.def (PARAM_VECT_COST_INCREASE_COMBINE_THRESHOLD): New.
* tree-vect-data-refs.c (vect_get_new
Ping
2016-06-28 15:24 GMT+03:00 Ilya Enkovich :
> On 16 Jun 10:54, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 05/19/2016 01:44 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> >Hi,
>> >
>> >This patch introduces support for loop epilogue combining. This includes
>> >support in cost estimation and all required changes required to mask
>>
On 28 Jun 15:24, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> On 16 Jun 10:54, Jeff Law wrote:
> >
> > I don't see anything particularly worrisome here either -- I have a slight
> > concern about correctness issues with only masking loads/stores and
> > reductions. But I will defer to your judgment on whether or not t
On 16 Jun 10:54, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 05/19/2016 01:44 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >This patch introduces support for loop epilogue combining. This includes
> >support in cost estimation and all required changes required to mask
> >vectorized loop.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Ilya
> >--
> >gcc/
>
On 05/19/2016 01:44 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
Hi,
This patch introduces support for loop epilogue combining. This includes
support in cost estimation and all required changes required to mask
vectorized loop.
Thanks,
Ilya
--
gcc/
2016-05-19 Ilya Enkovich
* dbgcnt.def (vect_tail_com
2016-06-16 18:51 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law :
> On 06/16/2016 09:41 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>>
>> 2016-06-15 14:44 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener :
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 9:44 PM, Ilya Enkovich
>>> wrote:
Hi,
This patch introduces support for loop epilogue combining. This
inc
On 06/16/2016 09:41 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
2016-06-15 14:44 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener :
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 9:44 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
Hi,
This patch introduces support for loop epilogue combining. This includes
support in cost estimation and all required changes required to mask
vec
2016-06-15 14:44 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener :
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 9:44 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This patch introduces support for loop epilogue combining. This includes
>> support in cost estimation and all required changes required to mask
>> vectorized loop.
>
> I wonder why yo
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 9:44 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patch introduces support for loop epilogue combining. This includes
> support in cost estimation and all required changes required to mask
> vectorized loop.
I wonder why you compute a minimum number of iterations to make maski
28 matches
Mail list logo
