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 887633857417; Sun, 30 May 2021 23:19:35 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 887633857417
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/95967] Poor aarch64 vector constructor code when using
 arm_neon.h
Date: Sun, 30 May 2021 23:19:35 +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: 11.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia 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-95967-4-JZrLi8V4uo@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-95967-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-95967-4@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
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 May 2021 23:19:35 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D95967

--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> Created attachment 50891 [details]
> Start of the patch which should fix most of it
>=20
> This patch which should fix the majority of the problem though I have not
> tested it on the testcase.  Basically it takes the BIT_INSERT_EXPR's and
> "combines" them such that they become a CONSTRUCTOR.
> I am still deciding if this belongs in reassoc or as part of forwprop.

This patch looks like it only fixes f1 and g1.

Most likely because I did not handle CONSTRUCTOR as the initial case:
f2:
  _6 =3D {s0_2(D), s0_2(D), s0_2(D), s0_2(D)};
  __builtin_aarch64_im_lane_boundsi (16, 4, 1);
  __builtin_aarch64_im_lane_boundsi (16, 4, 2);
  __builtin_aarch64_im_lane_boundsi (16, 4, 3);
  _10 =3D BIT_INSERT_EXPR <_6, s1_3(D), 32>;
  _12 =3D BIT_INSERT_EXPR <_10, s2_4(D), 64>;
  __vec_14 =3D BIT_INSERT_EXPR <_12, s3_5(D), 96>;

I will look into adding that in a few weeks and add a testcase for it too.=