From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 809F83858D20; Tue, 2 May 2023 12:11:53 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 809F83858D20 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1683029513; bh=9Zrd1Gu6+xEunbU5foqGRnOf5H7F5jv7E9c2lX+Dx7Y=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:From; b=NGmLrrGezxWYlBDNW6uT6Fdrx+jbnpE1B3FyTfY2SrqDrpmeHDjI/z7BJJdtsGO8v rcrWLGTtwkGJkejn2B2uaaDZ5Bu6UmafoTcUQl1kgqdo1HmrnKp2H00DoYAV7dSHtI v3/LXCxiuYp/DpfbO69X+YCsDXyLIIY+SOYA3sCQ= From: "stammark at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/109697] New: arm: lack of MVE instruction costing causing worse codegen on a vec_duplicate Date: Tue, 02 May 2023 12:11:52 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: new X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: stammark at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_id short_desc product version bug_status bug_severity priority component assigned_to reporter target_milestone Message-ID: 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: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D109697 Bug ID: 109697 Summary: arm: lack of MVE instruction costing causing worse codegen on a vec_duplicate Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: stammark at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Hi all, In the arm backend, for MVE targets we previously had this bug on the vcmp patterns: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D107987 The fix is fine, but it resulted in some failing tests: * gcc.target/arm/mve/intrinsics/vcmpcsq_n_u16.c * gcc.target/arm/mve/intrinsics/vcmpcsq_n_u32.c * gcc.target/arm/mve/intrinsics/vcmpcsq_n_u8.c * gcc.target/arm/mve/intrinsics/vcmpeqq_n_f16.c * gcc.target/arm/mve/intrinsics/vcmpeqq_n_f32.c * gcc.target/arm/mve/intrinsics/vcmpeqq_n_u16.c * gcc.target/arm/mve/intrinsics/vcmpeqq_n_u32.c * gcc.target/arm/mve/intrinsics/vcmpeqq_n_u8.c * gcc.target/arm/mve/intrinsics/vcmpgeq_n_f16.c * gcc.target/arm/mve/intrinsics/vcmpgeq_n_f32.c * gcc.target/arm/mve/intrinsics/vcmpgtq_n_f16.c * gcc.target/arm/mve/intrinsics/vcmpgtq_n_f32.c * gcc.target/arm/mve/intrinsics/vcmphiq_n_u16.c * gcc.target/arm/mve/intrinsics/vcmphiq_n_u32.c * gcc.target/arm/mve/intrinsics/vcmphiq_n_u8.c * gcc.target/arm/mve/intrinsics/vcmpleq_n_f16.c * gcc.target/arm/mve/intrinsics/vcmpleq_n_f32.c * gcc.target/arm/mve/intrinsics/vcmpltq_n_f16.c * gcc.target/arm/mve/intrinsics/vcmpltq_n_f32.c * gcc.target/arm/mve/intrinsics/vcmpneq_n_f16.c * gcc.target/arm/mve/intrinsics/vcmpneq_n_f32.c * gcc.target/arm/mve/intrinsics/vcmpneq_n_u16.c * gcc.target/arm/mve/intrinsics/vcmpneq_n_u32.c * gcc.target/arm/mve/intrinsics/vcmpneq_n_u8.c (after Andrea improved these tests in GCC13) The testcases that are failing are the ones that compare against a scalar immediate (e.g. "vcmpeqq (a, 1.1)"), because the compiler prefers to do: ``` vldr.64 d6, .L5 vldr.64 d7, .L5+8 vcmp.f16 eq, q0, q3 ``` When previously we would much more simply: ``` movs r3, #1 vcmp.u16 cs, q0, r3 ``` The underlying reason for this change is a known deficiency of the MVE implementation: the lack of proper instruction costing. The compiler falls back to calculating costs based on the operands and the = new vec_duplicate in the patterns (mve_vcmpq_n_, etc) gets gi= ven a cost of 32 (when instead it should know that the vec duplicate is free and this is all just one instruction...), so the "literal load + vector-vector compare" wins out against the "put the immediate in a GP reg + vector-scalar compare". For now, I plan on simply XFAIL-ing the tests.=