From: will schmidt <will_schmidt@vnet.ibm.com>
To: "Kewen.Lin" <linkw@linux.ibm.com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Cc: Peter Bergner <bergner@linux.ibm.com>,
David Edelsohn <dje.gcc@gmail.com>,
Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Adjust mov optabs for opaque modes [PR103353]
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2022 15:50:09 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1965a581def625fdd99654f70359a558ddd63db9.camel@vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <26dce79a-be26-95b0-c14d-51852811969a@linux.ibm.com>
On Thu, 2022-03-03 at 16:38 +0800, Kewen.Lin via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Hi,
>
Hi
> As PR103353 shows, we may want to continue to expand a MMA built-in
> function like a normal function, even if we have already emitted
> error messages about some missing required conditions. As shown in
> that PR, without one explicit mov optab on OOmode provided, it would
> call emit_move_insn recursively.
>
> So this patch is to allow the mov pattern to be generated when we are
> expanding to RTL and have seen errors even without MMA supported, it's
> expected that the generated pattern would not cause further ICEs as the
> compilation would stop soon after expanding.
Is there a testcase, new or existing, that illustrates this error path?
>
> Bootstrapped and regtested on powerpc64-linux-gnu P8 and
> powerpc64le-linux-gnu P9 and P10.
>
> Is it ok for trunk?
>
> BR,
> Kewen
> ------
>
> PR target/103353
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> * config/rs6000/mma.md (define_expand movoo): Move TARGET_MMA condition
> check to preparation statements and add handlings for !TARGET_MMA.
> (define_expand movxo): Likewise.
> > ---
> > gcc/config/rs6000/mma.md | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> > 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/mma.md b/gcc/config/rs6000/mma.md
> > index 907c9d6d516..f76a87b4a21 100644
> > --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/mma.md
> > +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/mma.md
> > @@ -268,10 +268,25 @@ (define_int_attr avvi4i4i4 [(UNSPEC_MMA_PMXVI8GER4PP "pmxvi8ger4pp")
> > (define_expand "movoo"
> > [(set (match_operand:OO 0 "nonimmediate_operand")
> > (match_operand:OO 1 "input_operand"))]
> > - "TARGET_MMA"
> > + ""
> > {
> > - rs6000_emit_move (operands[0], operands[1], OOmode);
> > - DONE;
> > + if (TARGET_MMA) {
> > + rs6000_emit_move (operands[0], operands[1], OOmode);
> > + DONE;
> > + }
> > + /* Opaque modes are only expected to be available when MMA is supported,
> > + but PR103353 shows we may want to continue to expand a MMA built-in
> > + function like a normal function, even if we have already emitted
> > + error messages about some missing required conditions.
perhaps drop "like a normal function".
> > + As shown in that PR, without one explicit mov optab on OOmode provided,
> > + it would call emit_move_insn recursively. So we allow this pattern to
> > + be generated when we are expanding to RTL and have seen errors, even
> > + though there is no MMA support. It would not cause further ICEs as
> > + the compilation would stop soon after expanding. */
Testcase would be particularly helpful to illustrate this, i think.
TH
anks,
-Will
> > + else if (currently_expanding_to_rtl && seen_error ())
> > + ;
> > + else
> > + gcc_unreachable ();
> > })
> >
> > (define_insn_and_split "*movoo"
> > @@ -300,10 +315,25 @@ (define_insn_and_split "*movoo"
> > (define_expand "movxo"
> > [(set (match_operand:XO 0 "nonimmediate_operand")
> > (match_operand:XO 1 "input_operand"))]
> > - "TARGET_MMA"
> > + ""
> > {
> > - rs6000_emit_move (operands[0], operands[1], XOmode);
> > - DONE;
> > + if (TARGET_MMA) {
> > + rs6000_emit_move (operands[0], operands[1], XOmode);
> > + DONE;
> > + }
> > + /* Opaque modes are only expected to be available when MMA is supported,
> > + but PR103353 shows we may want to continue to expand a MMA built-in
> > + function like a normal function, even if we have already emitted
> > + error messages about some missing required conditions.
> > + As shown in that PR, without one explicit mov optab on OOmode provided,
> > + it would call emit_move_insn recursively. So we allow this pattern to
> > + be generated when we are expanding to RTL and have seen errors, even
> > + though there is no MMA support. It would not cause further ICEs as
> > + the compilation would stop soon after expanding. */
> > + else if (currently_expanding_to_rtl && seen_error ())
> > + ;
> > + else
> > + gcc_unreachable ();
> > })
> >
> > (define_insn_and_split "*movxo"
> > --
> > 2.25.1
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-04-01 20:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-03-03 8:38 Kewen.Lin
2022-03-15 11:36 ` PING^1 " Kewen.Lin
2022-04-01 20:50 ` will schmidt [this message]
2022-04-01 21:52 ` Peter Bergner
2022-04-07 9:42 ` Kewen.Lin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1965a581def625fdd99654f70359a558ddd63db9.camel@vnet.ibm.com \
--to=will_schmidt@vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=bergner@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=dje.gcc@gmail.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=linkw@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=segher@kernel.crashing.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).