This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [060/nnn] poly_int: loop versioning threshold
- From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- To: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, richard dot sandiford at linaro dot org
- Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 10:31:28 -0700
- Subject: Re: [060/nnn] poly_int: loop versioning threshold
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <871sltvm7r.fsf@linaro.org> <87o9oxkc9d.fsf@linaro.org>
On 10/23/2017 11:25 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> This patch splits the loop versioning threshold out from the
> cost model threshold so that the former can become a poly_uint64.
> We still use a single test to enforce both limits where possible.
>
>
> 2017-10-23 Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@linaro.org>
> Alan Hayward <alan.hayward@arm.com>
> David Sherwood <david.sherwood@arm.com>
>
> gcc/
> * tree-vectorizer.h (_loop_vec_info): Add a versioning_threshold
> field.
> (LOOP_VINFO_VERSIONING_THRESHOLD): New macro
> (vect_loop_versioning): Take the loop versioning threshold as a
> separate parameter.
> * tree-vect-loop-manip.c (vect_loop_versioning): Likewise.
> * tree-vect-loop.c (_loop_vec_info::_loop_vec_info): Initialize
> versioning_threshold.
> (vect_analyze_loop_2): Compute the loop versioning threshold
> whenever loop versioning is needed, and store it in the new
> field rather than combining it with the cost model threshold.
> (vect_transform_loop): Update call to vect_loop_versioning.
> Try to combine the loop versioning and cost thresholds here.
So you dropped the tests for PEELING_FOR_GAPS and PEELING_FOR_NITER in
vect_analyze_loop_2. Was that intentional?
Otherwise it looks fine. If the drop was intentional, then OK as-is.
jeff