Re: [PATCH, CHKP, PR64363] Don't instrument functions we cannot copy

On 15 Jan 15:03, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > > 2015-01-15 16:07 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener : > >> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Ilya Enkovich > >> wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> Th

Re: [PATCH] Fix for PR64353

On 14 Jan 19:40, Richard Biener wrote: > On January 14, 2015 5:23:21 PM CET, Ilya Enkovich > wrote: > >On 14 Jan 15:35, Richard Biener wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Ilya Enkovich > > wrote: > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> >

[PATCH, CHKP] [always_inline 1/2] Allow inlining for not instrumented calls to always_inline functions

are due to problem in SRA fixed by the next patch. OK for trunk? Thanks, Ilya -- gcc/ 2015-01-16 Ilya Enkovich * ipa-chkp.c (chkp_produce_thunks): Add early param. (pass_data_ipa_chkp_early_produce_thunks): New. (pass_ipa_chkp_early_produce_th

[PATCH, CHKP] [always_inline 2/2] Fix segafult in SRA

and checked on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Fixes faults revealed by the first patch in the series. OK for trunk? Thanks, Ilya -- 2015-01-16 Ilya Enkovich * tree-sra.c (some_callers_have_mismatched_arguments_p): Allow thunk callers. diff --git a/gcc/tree-sra.c b/gcc/tree-sra.c

Re: [PATCH] Fix for PR64353

On 16 Jan 12:38, Richard Biener wrote: > On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Ilya Enkovich > wrote: > > On 14 Jan 19:40, Richard Biener wrote: > >> On January 14, 2015 5:23:21 PM CET, Ilya Enkovich > >> wrote: > >> >On 14 Jan 15:35, Richard Biener wrot

Re: [PATCH, CHKP] [always_inline 1/2] Allow inlining for not instrumented calls to always_inline functions

2015-01-16 19:58 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law : > On 01/16/15 04:04, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Currently compiler emits an error in case of not instrumented call to >> instrumented alwyas_inline function. It happens because when we inline >> there i

[PATCH, committed] Fix chkp-always_inline.c test to not fail with -fpic

Hi, chkp-always_inline.c test fails with -fpic (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2015-01/msg00528.html) because of non static function with 'always_inline' attribute. This patch fixes it. Committed as obvious. Thanks, Ilya -- 2015-01-20 Ilya Enkovich * gcc.target

[PATCH, CHKP] Fix bounds return check for calls

Hi, Currently chkp_call_returns_bounds_p works incorrectly for bounds narrowing. Also it doesn't reflect recent changes in calls instrumentation. This patch fixes the problem. Bootstrapped and checked on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. OK for trunk? Thanks, Ilya -- 2015-01-26 Ilya Enk

[PATCH, PR tree-optimization/64277] Improve loop iterations count estimation

Hi, This patch was supposed to fix PR tree-optimization/64277. Tracker is now fixed by warnings disabling but I think patch is still useful to avoid dead code generated by complete unroll. Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Thanks, Ilya -- gcc/ 2015-01-27 Ilya Enkovich

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR64277

2015-01-27 12:47 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener : > On Tue, 27 Jan 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 10:25:48AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: >> > >> > This disables array-bound warnings from VRP2 as discussed. >> > >> > Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu - ok for tr

Re: [PATCH, PR tree-optimization/64277] Improve loop iterations count estimation

On 27 Jan 12:40, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > Hi, > > This patch was supposed to fix PR tree-optimization/64277. Tracker is now > fixed by warnings disabling but I think patch is still useful to avoid dead > code generated by complete unroll. > > Bootstrapped and tested on x86

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR64277

2015-01-27 13:59 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener : > On Tue, 27 Jan 2015, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > >> 2015-01-27 12:47 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener : >> > On Tue, 27 Jan 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> > >> >> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 10:25:48AM +0100, Richard Biener

Re: [PATCH, PR tree-optimization/64277] Improve loop iterations count estimation

On 27 Jan 12:29, Richard Biener wrote: > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Ilya Enkovich > wrote: > > On 27 Jan 12:40, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> This patch was supposed to fix PR tree-optimization/64277. Tracker is now > >> fixed

[PATCH, CHKP] Fix PR middle-end/64805

and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. OK for trunk? Thanks, Ilya -- 2015-01-27 Ilya Enkovich PR middle-end/64805 * ipa-inline.c (early_inliner): Rebuild IPA_REF_CHKP reference to avoid error in cgraph node verification. 2015-01-27 Ilya Enkovich

Re: [RFC PATCH] Avoid most of the BUILT_IN_*_CHKP enum values

2015-01-27 17:27 GMT+03:00 Jakub Jelinek : > Hi! > > I've grepped for BUILT_IN_.*_CHKP in the sources and we actually need > far fewer enum values than the 1204 that are being defined. > > This patch requires builtins.def to say explicitly (by using > DEF_*BUILTIN_CHKP macro instead of correspondin

[PATCH, i386] Never fix register for PIC when pseudo PIC reg is used

help to avoid problems in the future. BTW if we don't want to support possibility to switch to the fixed PIC register in i386 target then this code may be removed at all. Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. OK for trunk? Thanks, Ilya -- 2015-01-28 Ilya Enk

Re: [PATCH, i386] Never fix register for PIC when pseudo PIC reg is used

puid.h and cmpxchg8b pattern will break. Please do not bring back the > >> dead and remove this code. > > > > Also, if possible, please simplify PIC_OFFSET_TABLE_REGNUM to use > > TARGET_USE_PSEUDO_PIC_REG, like: > > Ops, better use the attached patch that exports ix86_use_pseudo_pi

[PATCH, CHKP] Follow alias chain for decl visibility and aliases

Hi, This patch fixes two more cases where alias chain should be followed to emit correct assembler name for instrumented functions. Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. OK for trunk? Thanks, Ilya -- gcc/ 2015-01-30 Ilya Enkovich * varasm.c (do_assemble_alias

Re: [PATCH, PR tree-optimization/64277] Improve loop iterations count estimation

On 27 Jan 12:29, Richard Biener wrote: > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Ilya Enkovich > wrote: > > On 27 Jan 12:40, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> This patch was supposed to fix PR tree-optimization/64277. Tracker is now > >> fixed

[PATCH, PR tree-optimization/65002] Disable SRA for functions wrongly marked as read-only

ed on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. OK for trunk? Thanks, Ilya -- gcc/ 2015-02-12 Ilya Enkovich PR tree-optimization/65002 * tree-cfg.c (pass_data_fixup_cfg): Don't update SSA on start. * tree-sra.c (some_callers_have_no_vuse_p): New. (ipa_early_sr

Re: [PATCH, PR tree-optimization/65002] Disable SRA for functions wrongly marked as read-only

2015-02-13 11:54 GMT+03:00 Jakub Jelinek : > On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 09:47:56AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: >> > 2015-02-12 Ilya Enkovich >> > >> > PR tree-optimization/65002 >> > * tree-cfg.c (pass_data_fixup_cfg): Don't update &g

Re: [PATCH, PR tree-optimization/65002] Disable SRA for functions wrongly marked as read-only

2015-02-15 20:25 GMT+03:00 Mike Stump : > On Feb 13, 2015, at 11:25 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >>>> 2015-02-12 Ilya Enkovich >>>> >>>> PR tree-optimization/65002 >>>> * gcc.dg/pr65002.C: New. >>> >>> This test

[PATCH, CHKP, PR target/65044] Restrict pointer bounds checker with Sanitizer

Hi, This patch restricts usage of Pointer Bounds Checker with Sanitizer. OK for trunk? Thanks, Ilya -- gcc/ 2015-02-16 Ilya Enkovich PR target/65044 * toplev.c (process_options): Restrict Pointer Bounds Checker usage with sanitizers. gcc/testsuite/ 2015-02-16

Re: [PATCH, CHKP, PR target/65044] Restrict pointer bounds checker with Sanitizer

On 16 Feb 16:31, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 06:20:59PM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > > This patch restricts usage of Pointer Bounds Checker with Sanitizer. OK > > for trunk? > > There are many sanitizers, and for most of them I don't see why they

Re: [PATCH, CHKP, PR target/65044] Restrict pointer bounds checker with Sanitizer

On 16 Feb 17:01, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 06:56:45PM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > > On 16 Feb 16:31, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 06:20:59PM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > > > > This patch restricts usage of Pointer

[PATCH, IPA ICF] Fix PR63664, PR63574 (segfault in ipa-icf pass)

/ 2014-10-28 Ilya Enkovich PR ipa/63664 PR bootstrap/63574 * ipa-icf-gimple.c (func_checker::compatible_types_p): Allow NULL args. gcc/testsuite/ 2014-10-28 Ilya Enkovich PR ipa/63664 * gcc.dg/ipa/pr63664.C: New. diff --git a/gcc/ipa-icf-gimple.c

[PATCH, Pointer Bounds Checker 40/x] Support in IPA ICF

clean runs of instrumented (run in NOP mode) and not isntrumented SPEC2000 and SPEC2006. I also tried to bootstrap it for Darwin but unfortunately trunk fails to bootstrap there even with patches from PR63534 applied. Error is the same for mpx branch. Thanks, Ilya -- 2014-10-28 Ilya Enkovich

Re: [PATCH, IPA ICF] Fix PR63664, PR63574 (segfault in ipa-icf pass)

On 29 Oct 10:34, Richard Biener wrote: > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > > Hi, > > > > This patch fixes PR63664 and PR63574. Problem is in NULL types for labels > > not handled by ICF properly. I assume it is OK for labels to have NULL > &

Re: [PATCH, IPA ICF] Fix PR63664, PR63574 (segfault in ipa-icf pass)

2014-10-29 17:01 GMT+03:00 Martin Liška : > On 10/29/2014 02:45 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >> >> On 29 Oct 10:34, Richard Biener wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Ilya Enkovich >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>

Re: [PATCH, Pointer Bounds Checker 14/x] Passes [1/n] Expand interfaces

On 29 Oct 23:37, Jeff Law wrote: > On 10/15/14 11:54, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > > > >Thanks for review! I see no more patches not reviewed at all. I see > >4 more patches requiring approve before I can start a merge. > > > >Two of them are parts of split #14

[committed] MAINTAINERS: add myself to write-after-approval list

2014-10-31 Ilya Enkovich * MAINTAINERS (Write After Approval): Add myself. Index: MAINTAINERS === --- MAINTAINERS (revision 216948) +++ MAINTAINERS (revision 216952) @@ -373,6 +373,7 @@ Bernd Edlinger

Re: [PATCH, i386] Add prefixes avoidance tuning for silvermont target

Hi, Having stage1 close to end, may we make some decision regarding this patch? Having a couple of working variants, may we choose and use one of them? Thanks, Ilya 2014-07-15 17:38 GMT+04:00 Uros Bizjak : > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >> On 15 Jul 10:42, Ur

[PATCH, i386, MPX] Add target filter for MPX tests

ified tests on x86_64 and x32. OK for trunk? Thanks, Ilya -- gcc/testsuite/ 2014-11-06 Ilya Enkovich * lib/mpx-dg.exp: New. * gcc.target/i386/i386.exp: Load mpx-dg.exp. * gcc.target/i386/chkp-builtins-1.c: Require mpx target. * gcc.target/i386/chkp-builtin

[PATCH, Pointer Bounds Checker, Builtins instrumentation 1/5] Builtin codes and decls

ted code. This patch introduces new builtin codes, functions for builtin clones creation and modifies LTO streamer. Thanks, Ilya -- 2014-11-06 Ilya Enkovich * tree-core.h (built_in_class): Add builtin codes to be used by Pointer Bounds Checker for instrumented bu

[PATCH, Pointer Bounds Checker, Builtins instrumentation 2/5] Instrument builtin calls

Hi, This patch enables instrumentation of chosen builtin calls. Thanks, Ilya -- 2014-11-06 Ilya Enkovich * ipa-chkp.c (chkp_versioning): Clone builtin functions. (chkp_instrument_normal_builtin): New. (chkp_add_bounds_to_call_stmt): Support builtin functions

[PATCH, Pointer Bounds Checker, Builtins instrumentation 3/5] Expand instrumented builtin calls

patches are performance ones. Thanks, Ilya -- 2014-11-06 Ilya Enkovich * builtins.c (expand_builtin_memcpy_args): New. (expand_builtin_memcpy): Call expand_builtin_memcpy_args. (expand_builtin_memcpy_with_bounds): New. (expand_builtin_mempcpy_with_bounds): New

[PATCH, Pointer Bounds Checker, Builtins instrumentation 4/5] Use alternative instrumented string function calls

Hi, This patch adds instrumentation optimization to use string function with no checks and/or bounds copy. Thanks, Ilya -- gcc/ 2014-11-06 Ilya Enkovich * tree-chkp-opt.c (chkp_get_nobnd_fndecl): New. (chkp_get_nochk_fndecl): New

[PATCH, Pointer Bounds Checker, Builtins instrumentation 5/5] Support instrumented calls in strlen pass

Hi, This patch adds support of instrumented function calls into strlen pass. Whole series pass bootstrap and check on linux-x86_64. OK for trunk? Thanks, Ilya -- gcc/ 2014-11-06 Ilya Enkovich * tree-ssa-strlen.c: include ipa-chkp.h. (get_string_length): Handle calls with

Re: [PATCH][Revisedx2] Fix PR63750

2014-11-10 14:53 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener : > On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: >> Iain, >> It doesn't look like it will be that simple. If I replace the >> proposed patches with a change like... >> >> Index: gcc/system.h >> ==

[PATCH] Fix for PR63766 (handle removed functions in do_per_function_toporder)

x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. OK for trunk? Thanks, Ilya -- gcc/ 2014-11-10 Ilya Enkovich * passes.c (remove_cgraph_node_from_order): New. (do_per_function_toporder): Register cgraph removal hook. gcc/testsuite/ 2014-11-10 Ilya Enkovich * g++.dg/pr63766.C

[PATCH, MPX runtime 1/2] Integrate MPX runtime library

-- 2014-11-11 Ilya Enkovich * Makefile.def: Add libmpx. * configure.ac: Add libmpx. * Makefile.in: Regenerate. * configure: Regenerate. gcc/ 2014-11-11 Ilya Enkovich * gcc.c (MPX_SPEC): New. (LINK_COMMAND_SPEC): Add MPX_SPEC. libmpx/ 2014-11

Re: [PATCH, MPX runtime 2/2] Add MPX tests

2014-11-11 22:55 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law : > On 11/11/14 11:42, Mike Stump wrote: >> >> On Nov 11, 2014, at 8:02 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >>> >>> This patch adds simple runtime MPX tests. >>> >>> Make check shows no fails for mpx.exp suite for >&

Re: [PATCH, MPX runtime 1/2] Integrate MPX runtime library

2014-11-11 23:02 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law : > On 11/11/14 08:34, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> This patch integrates MPX runtime library into GCC source tree. MPX >> runtime is responsible for initialization of MPX feature in HW, signal >> handling, rep

Re: [PATCH, MPX runtime 1/2] Integrate MPX runtime library

2014-11-11 21:09 GMT+03:00 Joseph Myers : > On Tue, 11 Nov 2014, Joseph Myers wrote: > >> You have lots of static writable variables. Are you sure all those >> variables are handled in a thread-safe way (e.g. only modified before any >> threads start)? > > Another general multi-thread issue for li

Re: [PATCH, MPX runtime 1/2] Integrate MPX runtime library

On 11 Nov 20:25, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Tue, 11 Nov 2014, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > Joseph Myers writes: > > > > > On Tue, 11 Nov 2014, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > > > > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> This patch integrates MPX runti

Re: [PATCH, MPX runtime 1/2] Integrate MPX runtime library

2014-11-13 0:40 GMT+03:00 Joseph Myers : > On Wed, 12 Nov 2014, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > >> MPX runtime needs to be linked with programs using MPX because it >> initializes hardware. Without it all MPX instructions are just NOPs. >> Thus it's not an extra functi

Re: [MPX] Fix for PR77267

2016-08-25 12:27 GMT+03:00 Alexander Ivchenko : > The attached patched fixes the usage of MPX in presence of > "-Wl,-as-needed" option. 'make checked' on MPX-enabled machine. > > "--push-state" and "--pop-state" are not supported by gold at the > moment. But that's OK because using MPX with gold on

Re: [MPX] Fix for PR77267

no > +AC_MSG_CHECKING(linker --push-state/--pop-state options) > +if test x"$ld_is_gold" = xno; then > + if test $in_tree_ld = yes ; then > +if test "$gcc_cv_gld_major_version" -eq 2 -a > "$gcc_cv_gld_minor_version" -ge 25 -o "$gcc_cv_gld_major_version&quo

Re: [MPX] Fix for PR77267

2016-08-31 16:37 GMT+03:00 Alexander Ivchenko : > 2016-08-31 12:18 GMT+03:00 Ilya Enkovich : >> 2016-08-30 21:53 GMT+03:00 Alexander Ivchenko : >>> Would something like that count? >>> >>> I did not do the warning thing, cause the problem only appears when >&

Re: [MPX] Fix for PR77267

2016-09-05 12:56 GMT+03:00 Alexander Ivchenko : > Ok, thanks. The full updated patch is below. I also removed the > '--whole-archive' thing from -static-libmpxwrappers case. This version is OK for trunk with proper ChangeLog and after proper testing. > Would that be possible to backport that patc

Re: [vec-cmp, patch 5/6] Disable bool patterns when possible

2016-05-25 14:37 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener : > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >> On 21 Oct 11:45, Jeff Law wrote: >>> On 10/08/2015 09:15 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >>> >Hi, >>> > >>> >This patch disables transformation o

[PATCH, PR middle-end/71279] Avoid folding vec_cond_expr into comparison

Hi, This patch disable transformation of VEC_COND_EXPR into comparison which became invalid after boolean vectors introduciton. Bootstrapped and regtested for x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. OK for trunk and gcc-6? Thanks, Ilya -- gcc/ 2016-05-27 Ilya Enkovich PR middle-end/71279

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Remove ifcvt_repair_bool_pattern, re-do bool patterns

2016-05-30 14:04 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener : > > The following patch removes the restriction on seeing a tree of stmts > in vectorizer bool pattern detection (aka single-use). With this > it is no longer necessary to unshare DEFs in ifcvt_repair_bool_pattern > and that compile-time hog can go (it's

Re: [patch] Fix segfault in vectorizer

2016-05-31 12:25 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener : > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote: >> Hi, >> >> it's a regression present on the mainline and 6 branch: for the attached Ada >> testcase, optab_for_tree_code segfaults because the function is invoked on a >> NULL_TREE vectype_out fr

Re: ]PATCH][RFC] Initial patch for better performance of 64-bit math instructions in 32-bit mode on x86-64

2016-05-31 19:15 GMT+03:00 Uros Bizjak : > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote: >> Hi Uros, >> >> Here is initial patch to improve performance of 64-bit integer >> arithmetic in 32-bit mode. We discovered that gcc is significantly >> behind icc and clang on rsa benchmark from ee

Re: ]PATCH][RFC] Initial patch for better performance of 64-bit math instructions in 32-bit mode on x86-64

2016-06-01 13:06 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener : > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >> 2016-05-31 19:15 GMT+03:00 Uros Bizjak : >>> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote: >>>> Hi Uros, >>>> >>>> Here is

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 01/10] New compiler options

Hi Richard, Do you have some comments on other parts of this series? Thanks, Ilya 2016-05-20 14:40 GMT+03:00 Ilya Enkovich : > 2016-05-20 14:17 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener : >> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Ilya Enkovich >> wrote: >>> 2016-05-20 12:26 GMT+03:00 Rich

[PATCH, libmpx] Fix overflow bug

Hi, Current bounds copy algorithm has a bug which causes overflow in a specific case when there are no bounds to copy. Patch was regtested and bootstrapped for x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. I'm going to apply it to trunk and gcc-6-branch. Thanks, Ilya -- libmpx/ 2016-06-10 Ilya Enk

[PATCH, CHKP, PR middle-end/71529] Fix DECL_CONTEXT for args of instrumentation clones with no body

ranch. Thanks, Ilya -- gcc/ 2016-06-15 Ilya Enkovich PR middle-end/71529 * ipa-chkp.c (chkp_build_instrumented_fndecl): Fix DECL_CONTEXT for copied arguments. gcc/testsuite/ 2016-06-15 Ilya Enkovich PR middle-end/71529 * gcc.target/i386/pr71529.C: New

[PATCH, PR middle-end/71488] Fix vectorization of comparison of booleans

twise operations which work correctly for both vector and scalar masks. Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Is it OK for trunk? What should be done for gcc-6-branch? Port this patch or just restrict vectorization for comparison of booleans? Thanks, Ilya -- gcc/ 2016-06-15 Ilya Enk

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 01/10] New compiler options

On 20 May 14:40, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > > Can you make all these --params then? I think to be useful to users we'd > > want > > them to be loop pragmas rather than options. > > OK, I'll change it to params. I didn't think about control via > pr

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 07/10] Support loop epilogue combining

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 >>

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 08/10] Support loop epilogue masking and low trip count loop vectorization

2016-06-15 15:00 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener : > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 9:46 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >> Hi, >> >> This patch enables vectorization of loop epilogues and low trip count >> loops using masking. > > I wonder why we have the epilogue masking restricti

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 07/10] Support loop epilogue combining

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, >>

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 02/10] Extend _loop_vec_info structure with epilogue related fields

2016-06-16 8:11 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law : > On 05/19/2016 01:38 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> This patch adds new fields to _loop_vec_info structure to support loop >> epilogue vectorization. >> >> Thanks, >> Ilya >> -- >&

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 01/10] New compiler options

2016-06-16 8:06 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law : > On 05/20/2016 05:40 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >> >> 2016-05-20 14:17 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener : >>> >>> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Ilya Enkovich >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> 2016-05-20 12:26 G

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 03/10] Support epilogues vectorization with no masking

2016-06-16 8:22 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law : > On 06/15/2016 05:03 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >> >> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 9:39 PM, Ilya Enkovich >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> This patch introduces changes required to run vectorizer on loop >&

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 03/10] Support epilogues vectorization with no masking

2016-06-16 9:00 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law : > On 05/19/2016 01:39 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> This patch introduces changes required to run vectorizer on loop epilogue. >> This also enables epilogue vectorization using a vector of smaller size. >> >

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 03/10] Support epilogues vectorization with no masking

2016-06-17 17:48 GMT+03:00 Bin.Cheng : > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >> 2016-06-16 9:00 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law : >>> On 05/19/2016 01:39 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> This patch introduces c

Re: [PATCH] PR target/71549: Convert V1TImode register to TImode in debug insn

2016-06-20 16:39 GMT+03:00 Uros Bizjak : > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 1:55 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> TImode register referenced in debug insn can be converted to V1TImode >> by scalar to vector optimization. We need to convert a debug insn if >> it has a variable in a TImode register. >> >> Tested on x8

Re: [PATCH] PR target/71549: Convert V1TImode register to TImode in debug insn

On 20 Jun 09:45, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 7:30 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > > 2016-06-20 16:39 GMT+03:00 Uros Bizjak : > >> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 1:55 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > >>> TImode register referenced in debug insn can be converted to V1TI

Re: [PATCH] PR target/71549: Convert V1TImode register to TImode in debug insn

2016-06-21 15:48 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu : > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 11:53 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Ilya Enkovich >> wrote: >>> On 20 Jun 09:45, H.J. Lu wrote: >>>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 7:30 AM, Ilya Enkovich >>>&g

Re: [PATCH, PR middle-end/71488] Fix vectorization of comparison of booleans

2016-06-21 23:57 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law : > On 06/16/2016 05:06 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> This patch fixes incorrect comparison vectorization for booleans. >> The problem is that regular comparison which works for scalars >> doesn

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 04/10] Add masking cost

On 16 Jun 00:16, Jeff Law wrote: > On 05/19/2016 01:40 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > >Hi, > > > >This patch extends vectorizer cost model to include masking cost by > >adding new cost model locations and new target hook to compute > >masking cost. > > > >

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 05/10] Check if loop can be masked

2016-06-16 9:26 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law : > On 06/15/2016 05:22 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >> >> >> You look at TREE_TYPE of LOOP_VINFO_NITERS (loop_vinfo) - I don't think >> this is meaningful (if then only by accident). I think you should look at >> the >> control IV itself, possibly it's value-range,

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 05/10] Check if loop can be masked

2016-06-16 10:08 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law : > On 05/19/2016 01:42 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> This patch introduces analysis to determine if loop can be masked >> (compute LOOP_VINFO_CAN_BE_MASKED and LOOP_VINFO_REQUIRED_MASKS) >> and compute how mu

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 05/10] Check if loop can be masked

On 22 Jun 11:42, Jeff Law wrote: > On 06/22/2016 10:09 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > > >>Given the common structure & duplication I can't help but wonder if a single > >>function should be used for widening/narrowing. Ultimately can't you swap > >>

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 03/10] Support epilogues vectorization with no masking

On 17 Jun 10:46, Jeff Law wrote: > On 06/17/2016 08:33 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > >> > >>Hmm, there seems to be a level of indirection I'm missing here. We're > >>smuggling LOOP_VINFO_ORIG_LOOP_INFO around in loop->aux. Ewww. I thought > >>

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 08/10] Support loop epilogue masking and low trip count loop vectorization

On 16 Jun 18:52, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > 2016-06-15 15:00 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener : > > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 9:46 PM, Ilya Enkovich > > wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> This patch enables vectorization of loop epilogues and low trip count > >> lo

[PATCH, CHKP, PR ipa/71624] Fix local.can_change_signature computation for instrumentation thunk callees

016-06-27 Ilya Enkovich * ipa-inline-analysis.c (compute_inline_parameters): Set local.can_change_signature to false for intrumentation thunk callees. gcc/testsuite/ 2016-06-27 Ilya Enkovich * g++.dg/pr71624.C: New test. diff --git a/gcc/ipa-inline-analysis.c b

[PATCH, obvious] Update comments for several vectorizator functions

Hi, This patch adds args description for some vectorizer functions. I'm going to commit it to trunk. Thanks, Ilya -- gcc/ 2016-06-27 Ilya Enkovich * tree-vect-loop-manip.c (vect_update_ivs_after_vectorizer): Update comment. (vect_update_inits_of_drs): Lik

Re: [PATCH, PR middle-end/71488] Fix vectorization of comparison of booleans

Looks like it caused PR71655 and therefore is not so safe :/ Ilya 2016-06-22 17:00 GMT+03:00 Ilya Enkovich : > 2016-06-21 23:57 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law : >> On 06/16/2016 05:06 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> This patch fixes incorrect c

[PATCH, PR tree-optimization/71655] Fix LE and LT masks comparison cases

Hi, Currently we use operands swap when compare masks using LT and LE codes. Operands swap misses swap for their definition types and this patch fixes it. Testing is in progress. OK for trunk if pass? Thanks, Ilya -- gcc/ 2016-06-28 Ilya Enkovich * tree-vect-stmts.c

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 07/10] Support loop epilogue combining

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. &g

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 05/10] Check if loop can be masked

On 23 Jun 12:54, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > > Here is an updated version with less typos and more comments. > > Thanks, > Ilya > -- Here is an updated version with trapping statements check added to vect_analyze_stmt. Thanks, Ilya -- gcc/ 2016-06-28 Ilya Enkovich

Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 07/10] Support loop epilogue combining

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

Re: [PATCH] Do not instrument void variables with MPX (PR tree-opt/79987).

2017-08-10 10:40 GMT+03:00 Martin Liška : > Hello. > > In order to prevent the ICE, CHKP should not isntrument variables of void > type. Hi, There was another thread for this PR where I proposed a way to handle such vars via size relocations. But there was no feedback in that thread for two mont

Re: [CHKP] Fix for PR79990

2017-05-09 16:29 GMT+03:00 Alexander Ivchenko : > Hi, > > Here is the latest version of the patch with all comments addressed: > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > 2017-05-09 Alexander Ivchenko > > * tree-chkp.c (chkp_get_hard_register_var_fake_base_address): > New function. > (chkp_get_hard_r

Re: Fix for PR79987

xander > > 2017-05-10 22:51 GMT+02:00 Ilya Enkovich : >> 2017-05-10 22:08 GMT+03:00 Alexander Ivchenko : >>> Hi, >>> >>> something like that: >>> >>> diff --git a/gcc/tree-chkp.c b/gcc/tree-chkp.c >>> inde

Re: Pointer Bounds Checker and trailing arrays (PR68270)

2016-12-20 17:44 GMT+03:00 Alexander Ivchenko : > 2016-11-26 0:28 GMT+03:00 Ilya Enkovich : >> 2016-11-25 15:47 GMT+03:00 Alexander Ivchenko : >>> Hi, >>> >>> The patch below addresses PR68270. could you please take a look? >>> >>> 2016-11-25

Re: Pointer Bounds Checker and trailing arrays (PR68270)

TREE_CODE(TREE_TYPE(field)) == ARRAY_TYPE > + && !DECL_CHAIN (field)) > && (!DECL_FIELD_OFFSET (field) > || TREE_CODE (DECL_FIELD_OFFSET (field)) == INTEGER_CST) > && (!DECL_FIELD_BIT_OFFSET (field) OK. > > 2016-12-21 21:00 GMT+03:00 Ilya Enkovich : >> 2016-1

Re: PR78631 fix

Hi, ChangeLog? Otherwise OK. Ilya 2016-12-23 14:02 GMT+03:00 Alexander Ivchenko : > Hi Ilya, > > Would that patch be OK to submit? (it is HJ's one with added testcase) > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/mpx/memcpy-1.c > b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/mpx/memcpy-1.c > new file mode 1

Re: [CHKP] Fix for PR79990

2017-03-23 17:18 GMT+03:00 Alexander Ivchenko : > Hi, > > The patch below attempts to fix the PR. I checked that it did not > break any of mpx.exp tests, but I did not run the full testing yet. > Would like to know whether this approach is generally correct or not. > > The issue is that we have the

Re: Fix for PR79987

2017-04-04 18:34 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law : > On 04/04/2017 09:07 AM, Alexander Ivchenko wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> When creating static bounds for foo below we end up with: >> >> *((unsigned long *) &__chkp_bounds_of_foo + 8) = >> ~(__builtin_ia32_sizeof (foo) + ((long unsigned int) &foo + >> 18446744073709

Re: [CHKP] Fix for PR79990

obj; > + > + /* If not - return regular ADDR_EXPR. */ >return TREE_CODE (obj) == TARGET_MEM_REF > ? tree_mem_ref_addr (ptr_type_node, obj) > : build_fold_addr_expr (obj); > @@ -3170,6 +3195,11 @@ chkp_get_bounds_for_decl_addr (tree decl) >gcc_assert

Re: [CHKP] Fix for PR79990

ibute__ ((vector_size (8))); > + > +struct S2 > +{ > + int* f[2]; > +}; > + > +int foo (int i, int *kp1) > +{ > + register struct S2 b asm ("xmm0"); > + int k2 = 5; > + > + b.f[0] = kp1; > + b.f[1] = &k2; > + > + b.f[0] = b.f[0] + i; > + return *

Re: [CHKP] Fix for PR79988

Hi, Please put comment to code explaining why you don't use gimple_call_builtin_p to avoid similar issues in the future. Also please follow Rainer's comments. OK with these fixes. Thanks, Ilya 2017-04-20 15:27 GMT+03:00 Rainer Orth : > Hi Alexander, > > just a couple of nits: > >> gcc/testsui

Re: [PATCH] MPX: fix PR middle-end/79753

2017-03-10 16:15 GMT+03:00 Martin Liška : > Hello. > > Currently, __builtin_ia32_bndret is used for all functions that have non-void > return type. I think the right fix is to return bounds just for a bounded > type. > > Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests. > > Re

Re: [PATCH 1/5] Fix *_CST ICEs connected to MPX.

2017-03-13 16:33 GMT+03:00 Martin Liška : > On 03/13/2017 02:07 PM, Richard Biener wrote: >> No, that can't happen. I said that for example for >> >> struct S { ... } s; >> foo (s); >> >> pass_by_reference may be true but on gimple you see a struct s as >> actual argument. I'm not sure >> what ch

Re: [PATCH] MPX: fix PR middle-end/79753

2017-03-15 13:15 GMT+03:00 Martin Liška : > On 03/14/2017 11:27 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >> >> 2017-03-10 16:15 GMT+03:00 Martin Liška : >>> >>> Hello. >>> >>> Currently, __builtin_ia32_bndret is used for all functions that have >>>

<    2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   >