[Bug tree-optimization/105940] New: suggested_unroll_factor applying place looks wrong
linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Mon Jun 13 05:59:02 GMT 2022
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105940
Bug ID: 105940
Summary: suggested_unroll_factor applying place looks wrong
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
I tried to evaluate if we can get some performance gains by setting
suggested_unroll_factor on Power, but met one ICE coming from the line:
cached_vf_per_mode[last_mode_i]
= exact_div (LOOP_VINFO_VECT_FACTOR (loop_vinfo),
loop_vinfo->suggested_unroll_factor);
With below simple hacking in rs6000 backend:
diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc
index d7a7cfe860f..dcf2e8fc0ba 100644
--- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc
+++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc
@@ -5490,6 +5490,8 @@ rs6000_cost_data::finish_cost (const vector_costs
*scalar_costs)
&& LOOP_VINFO_VECT_FACTOR (loop_vinfo) == 2
&& LOOP_REQUIRES_VERSIONING (loop_vinfo))
m_costs[vect_body] += 10000;
+
+ m_suggested_unroll_factor = 4;
}
vector_costs::finish_cost (scalar_costs);
We can get the ICE reproduced on the below reduced test case:
_Complex *a;
_Complex b, e;
int c, d;
void f() {
_Complex g;
for (; d; d++)
g += a[d * c] * e;
b = g;
}
option: -Ofast -mcpu=power10
More information about the Gcc-bugs
mailing list