From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 7E1443858D39; Mon, 27 Feb 2023 23:06:53 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 7E1443858D39
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1677539213;
	bh=YTVLhRtu0qlhGq1pbtFgmO/mOHIsXnvA53Yn3RzF7xo=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=riRP8RIglSKyavo0s+9vSMekLNHQ1cz2cS84/cWhTC2f/ZoLQZ/by+pGv5PiXTRuh
	 Pz2u5noFhNgaKNr9GSbXuI37UlDr4kY0VFYPgD2jt/SrL7ThbQk78owRjtk6kGfvmf
	 OAOm+w2eF82ji6SCwruRyZ4X3zeDhdDzjCMBF3xA=
From: "segher at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/106770] PPCLE: Unnecessary xxpermdi before mfvsrd
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2023 23:06:52 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: segher at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: jskumari at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-106770-4-KwWvrmXxf0@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-106770-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-106770-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D106770

--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jens Seifert from comment #4)
> PPCLE with no special option means -mcpu=3Dpower8 -maltivec  (altivecle t=
o be
> mor precise).

What?  No.

$ sh config.sub ppcle=20=20=20=20=20=20
powerpcle-unknown-none

This is typically the old 32-bit PowerPC ELF format.  powerpcle-elf (which
non-canonically can be called ppcle-elf) for example, or ppcle-linux, but n=
ot
ppcle-aix and the like (that one doesn't even exist; at least one COFF
format has existed in the past though).

This may not matter for you, but it is awfully confusing for others.


powerpc64le-linux (and I believe all other existing ELFv2 ports) require
a p8 or later CPU, sure; but it is perfectly valid to have no AltiVec even
then, or for a port to default to some other CPU.  Currently we have no such
thing, and all default defaults are like you say, but that might change.

> vec_promote(<double value>, 1) should be a noop on ppcle.

It never is, not on powerpc64le either.  It always duplicates the selected
elt to all lanes.

> But value gets
> splatted to both left and right part of vector register. =3D> 2 unnecesary
> xxpermdi

So why are those not optimised away?  *That* is the question!

> The rest of the operations are done on left and right part.
>=20
> vec_extract(<vector double>, 1) should be noop on ppcle. But value gets
> taken from right part of register which requires a xxpermdi
>=20
> Overall 3 unnecessary xxpermdi. Don't know why the right part of register
> gets "preferred".

I don't know what you mean there?  The ABIs say where parameters and return
values are stored, but you mean something else?=