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 B9EA23857837; Thu, 11 Jan 2024 09:13:23 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org B9EA23857837
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1704964403;
	bh=tW4BWlAsfZP4vmxEPx/6WJIyaUn9jzs8+640ss+CU5Q=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=onGVUkKzr+0muOb40/n4byGwpOkNQCplodxA9PEQfLja09Py46pjOuyuG7SAO3nsC
	 C8iPcCXDxO0aF29XaWhuQyEnprGxnVcGqTW8adSbyHLTOBWX+tz9JXOyuwGKpHPYvj
	 1HGeDh9gPtg0arGV6zbhqoJx3vnTqIuzPJgx1joY=
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/113326] Optimize vector shift with constant delta on
 shifting-count operand
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 09:13:23 +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: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
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: 
Message-ID: <bug-113326-4-Z4m3cORdzi@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-113326-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-113326-4@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=3D113326

--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> One more thing:
> ```
>  vect_shift_0 =3D vect_value >> { 0, 1, 2, 3 };
>  vect_shift_1 =3D vect_value >> { 4, 5, 6, 7 };
>  vect_shift_2 =3D vect_value >> { 8, 9, 10, 11 };
>  vect_shift_3 =3D vect_value >> { 12, 13, 14, 15 };
> ```
> vs
> ```
>  vect_shift_0 =3D vect_value >> { 0, 1, 2, 3 };
>  vect_shift_1 =3D vect_shift_0 >> { 4, 4, 4, 4 };
>  vect_shift_2 =3D vect_shift_0 >> { 8, 8, 8, 8 };
>  vect_shift_3 =3D vect_shift_0 >> { 12, 12, 12, 12 };
> ```
>=20
> the first has fully independent operations while in the second case, there
> is one dependent and the are independent operations.
>=20
> On cores which has many vector units the first one might be faster than t=
he
> second one.  So this needs a cost model too.

Note the vectorizer has the shift values dependent as well (across iteratio=
ns),
we just constant propagate after unrolling here.

Note this is basically asking for "strength-reduction" of expensive
constants which could be more generally useful and not only for this
specific shift case.  Consider the same example but with an add instead
of a shift for example, the same exact set of constants will appear.=