[PATCH GCC 9/9]Prove no-overflow in computation of LOOP_VINFO_NITERS and improve code generation

Bin.Cheng amker.cheng@gmail.com
Thu Oct 13 11:24:00 GMT 2016


On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 8:58 PM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 09/06/2016 12:54 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> LOOP_VINFO_NITERS is computed as LOOP_VINFO_NITERSM1 + 1, which could
>> overflow in loop niters' type.  Vectorizer needs to generate more code
>> computing vectorized niters if overflow does happen.  However, For common
>> loops, there is no overflow actually, this patch tries to prove the
>> no-overflow information and use that to improve code generation.  At the
>> moment, no-overflow information comes either from loop niter analysis, or
>> the truth that we know loop is peeled for non-zero iterations in prologue
>> peeling.  For the latter case, it doesn't matter if the original
>> LOOP_VINFO_NITERS overflows or not, because computation LOOP_VINFO_NITERS -
>> LOOP_VINFO_PEELING_FOR_ALIGNMENT cancels the overflow by underflow.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> bin
>>
>> 2016-09-01  Bin Cheng  <bin.cheng@arm.com>
>>
>>         * tree-vect-loop.c (loop_niters_no_overflow): New func.
>>         (vect_transform_loop): Call loop_niters_no_overflow.  Pass the
>>         no-overflow information to vect_do_peeling_for_loop_bound and
>>         vect_gen_vector_loop_niters.
>>
> OK when prereqs are all approved.
Hi,
I revised this patch using widest_int comparison for trees, rather
than int.  Attached new patch is committed.  Also committed all
patches in peel refactoring patch set, they are posted at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-09/msg00326.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-10/msg01012.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-09/msg00328.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-09/msg00329.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-09/msg00330.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-09/msg00331.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-09/msg00332.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-09/msg00333.html

The patch set bootstrap and test again on x86_64 and AArch64.  No
regression found.
I will keep eyes on possible fallouts.

Thanks,
bin

>
> jeff
-------------- next part --------------
diff --git a/gcc/tree-vect-loop.c b/gcc/tree-vect-loop.c
index 0470445..9cca9b7 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-vect-loop.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-vect-loop.c
@@ -6620,6 +6620,39 @@ vect_loop_kill_debug_uses (struct loop *loop, gimple *stmt)
     }
 }
 
+/* Given loop represented by LOOP_VINFO, return true if computation of
+   LOOP_VINFO_NITERS (= LOOP_VINFO_NITERSM1 + 1) doesn't overflow, false
+   otherwise.  */
+
+static bool
+loop_niters_no_overflow (loop_vec_info loop_vinfo)
+{
+  /* Constant case.  */
+  if (LOOP_VINFO_NITERS_KNOWN_P (loop_vinfo))
+    {
+      tree cst_niters = LOOP_VINFO_NITERS (loop_vinfo);
+      tree cst_nitersm1 = LOOP_VINFO_NITERSM1 (loop_vinfo);
+
+      gcc_assert (TREE_CODE (cst_niters) == INTEGER_CST);
+      gcc_assert (TREE_CODE (cst_nitersm1) == INTEGER_CST);
+      if (wi::to_widest (cst_nitersm1) < wi::to_widest (cst_niters))
+	return true;
+    }
+
+  widest_int max;
+  struct loop *loop = LOOP_VINFO_LOOP (loop_vinfo);
+  /* Check the upper bound of loop niters.  */
+  if (get_max_loop_iterations (loop, &max))
+    {
+      tree type = TREE_TYPE (LOOP_VINFO_NITERS (loop_vinfo));
+      signop sgn = TYPE_SIGN (type);
+      widest_int type_max = widest_int::from (wi::max_value (type), sgn);
+      if (max < type_max)
+	return true;
+    }
+  return false;
+}
+
 /* Function vect_transform_loop.
 
    The analysis phase has determined that the loop is vectorizable.
@@ -6707,8 +6740,9 @@ vect_transform_loop (loop_vec_info loop_vinfo)
   tree niters = vect_build_loop_niters (loop_vinfo);
   LOOP_VINFO_NITERS_UNCHANGED (loop_vinfo) = niters;
   tree nitersm1 = unshare_expr (LOOP_VINFO_NITERSM1 (loop_vinfo));
+  bool niters_no_overflow = loop_niters_no_overflow (loop_vinfo);
   vect_do_peeling (loop_vinfo, niters, nitersm1, &niters_vector, th,
-		   check_profitability, false);
+		   check_profitability, niters_no_overflow);
   if (niters_vector == NULL_TREE)
     {
       if (LOOP_VINFO_NITERS_KNOWN_P (loop_vinfo))
@@ -6717,7 +6751,7 @@ vect_transform_loop (loop_vec_info loop_vinfo)
 			   LOOP_VINFO_INT_NITERS (loop_vinfo) / vf);
       else
 	vect_gen_vector_loop_niters (loop_vinfo, niters, &niters_vector,
-				     false);
+				     niters_no_overflow);
     }
 
   /* 1) Make sure the loop header has exactly two entries


More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list