From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75A213858004; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 02:15:20 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 75A213858004 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098416.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 15728ZcA088414; Sun, 6 Jun 2021 22:15:19 -0400 Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3919mjrtmv-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 06 Jun 2021 22:15:19 -0400 Received: from m0098416.ppops.net (m0098416.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 15729N55090935; Sun, 6 Jun 2021 22:15:19 -0400 Received: from ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com (62.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.98]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3919mjrtmg-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 06 Jun 2021 22:15:18 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 15728BFm005693; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 02:15:17 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay11.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.196]) by ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3900w8gkcy-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 07 Jun 2021 02:15:17 +0000 Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.58]) by b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 1572FFMq25035048 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 7 Jun 2021 02:15:15 GMT Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5BF44C04A; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 02:15:14 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B7024C044; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 02:15:13 +0000 (GMT) Received: from luoxhus-MacBook-Pro.local (unknown [9.200.155.117]) by d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 02:15:13 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Ping: [PATCH] rs6000: Fix wrong code generation for vec_sel [PR94613] To: Segher Boessenkool Cc: wschmidt@linux.ibm.com, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, linkw@gcc.gnu.org, dje.gcc@gmail.com References: <20210430063258.2774866-1-luoxhu@linux.ibm.com> <20210513104931.GG10366@gate.crashing.org> <973f14d9-c626-89b4-753f-e5c613eef6f2@linux.ibm.com> From: Xionghu Luo Message-ID: <36953f8f-b15c-c5e4-2519-21e9a1b1409d@linux.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2021 10:15:11 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.0; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0 In-Reply-To: <973f14d9-c626-89b4-753f-e5c613eef6f2@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: fTNTvwTN6SqJCVYe_0d7mIyr8Ng_KtjU X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: yXpDilsRnatjGdL_p_Hz3QunD3C5axzr Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Proofpoint-UnRewURL: 0 URL was un-rewritten MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391, 18.0.761 definitions=2021-06-06_18:2021-06-04, 2021-06-06 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 malwarescore=0 adultscore=0 clxscore=1015 impostorscore=0 suspectscore=0 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 spamscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 priorityscore=1501 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2104190000 definitions=main-2106070012 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, BODY_8BITS, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_EF, GIT_PATCH_0, KAM_SHORT, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2021 02:15:30 -0000 Gentle ping, thanks. https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-May/570333.html On 2021/5/14 14:57, Xionghu Luo via Gcc-patches wrote: > Hi, > > On 2021/5/13 18:49, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >> Hi! >> >> On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 01:32:58AM -0500, Xionghu Luo wrote: >>> The vsel instruction is a bit-wise select instruction.  Using an >>> IF_THEN_ELSE to express it in RTL is wrong and leads to wrong code >>> being generated in the combine pass.  Per element selection is a >>> subset of per bit-wise selection,with the patch the pattern is >>> written using bit operations.  But there are 8 different patterns >>> to define "op0 := (op1 & ~op3) | (op2 & op3)": >>> >>> (~op3&op1) | (op3&op2), >>> (~op3&op1) | (op2&op3), >>> (op3&op2) | (~op3&op1), >>> (op2&op3) | (~op3&op1), >>> (op1&~op3) | (op3&op2), >>> (op1&~op3) | (op2&op3), >>> (op3&op2) | (op1&~op3), >>> (op2&op3) | (op1&~op3), >>> >>> Combine pass will swap (op1&~op3) to (~op3&op1) due to commutative >>> canonical, which could reduce it to the FIRST 4 patterns, but it won't >>> swap (op2&op3) | (~op3&op1) to (~op3&op1) | (op2&op3), so this patch >>> handles it with two patterns with different NOT op3 position and check >>> equality inside it. >> >> Yup, that latter case does not have canonicalisation rules.  Btw, not >> only combine does this canonicalisation: everything should, >> non-canonical RTL is invalid RTL (in the instruction stream, you can do >> everything in temporary code of course, as long as the RTL isn't >> malformed). >> >>> -(define_insn "*altivec_vsel" >>> +(define_insn "altivec_vsel" >>>     [(set (match_operand:VM 0 "altivec_register_operand" "=v") >>> -    (if_then_else:VM >>> -     (ne:CC (match_operand:VM 1 "altivec_register_operand" "v") >>> -        (match_operand:VM 4 "zero_constant" "")) >>> -     (match_operand:VM 2 "altivec_register_operand" "v") >>> -     (match_operand:VM 3 "altivec_register_operand" "v")))] >>> -  "VECTOR_MEM_ALTIVEC_P (mode)" >>> -  "vsel %0,%3,%2,%1" >>> +    (ior:VM >>> +     (and:VM >>> +      (not:VM (match_operand:VM 3 "altivec_register_operand" "v")) >>> +      (match_operand:VM 1 "altivec_register_operand" "v")) >>> +     (and:VM >>> +      (match_operand:VM 2 "altivec_register_operand" "v") >>> +      (match_operand:VM 4 "altivec_register_operand" "v"))))] >>> +  "VECTOR_UNIT_ALTIVEC_OR_VSX_P (mode) >>> +  && (rtx_equal_p (operands[2], operands[3]) >>> +  || rtx_equal_p (operands[4], operands[3]))" >>> +  { >>> +    if (rtx_equal_p (operands[2], operands[3])) >>> +      return "vsel %0,%1,%4,%3"; >>> +    else >>> +      return "vsel %0,%1,%2,%3"; >>> +  } >>>     [(set_attr "type" "vecmove")]) >> >> That rtx_equal_p stuff is nice and tricky, but it is a bit too tricky I >> think.  So please write this as two patterns (and keep the expand if >> that helps). > > I was a bit concerned that there would be a lot of duplicate code if we > write two patterns for each vsel, totally 4 similar patterns in > altivec.md and another 4 in vsx.md make it difficult to maintain, however > I updated it since you prefer this way, as you pointed out the xxsel in > vsx.md could be folded by later patch. > >> >>> +(define_insn "altivec_vsel2" >> >> (same here of course). >> >>>   ;; Fused multiply add. >>> diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c >>> b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c >>> index f5676255387..d65bdc01055 100644 >>> --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c >>> +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-call.c >>> @@ -3362,11 +3362,11 @@ const struct altivec_builtin_types >>> altivec_overloaded_builtins[] = { >>>       RS6000_BTI_V2DI, RS6000_BTI_V2DI, RS6000_BTI_V2DI, >>> RS6000_BTI_unsigned_V2DI }, >>>     { ALTIVEC_BUILTIN_VEC_SEL, ALTIVEC_BUILTIN_VSEL_2DI, >>>       RS6000_BTI_V2DI, RS6000_BTI_V2DI, RS6000_BTI_V2DI, >>> RS6000_BTI_V2DI }, >>> -  { ALTIVEC_BUILTIN_VEC_SEL, ALTIVEC_BUILTIN_VSEL_2DI, >>> +  { ALTIVEC_BUILTIN_VEC_SEL, ALTIVEC_BUILTIN_VSEL_2DI_UNS, >> >> Are the _uns things still used for anything?  But, let's not change >> this until Bill's stuff is in :-) >> >> Why do you want to change this here, btw?  I don't understand. > > OK, they are actually "unsigned type" overload builtin functions, change > it or not so far won't cause functionality issue, I will revert this change > in the updated patch. > >> >>> +  if (target == 0 >>> +      || GET_MODE (target) != tmode >>> +      || ! (*insn_data[icode].operand[0].predicate) (target, tmode)) >> >> No space after ! and other unary operators (except for casts and other >> operators you write with alphanumerics, like "sizeof").  I know you >> copied this code, but :-) > > OK, thanks. > >> >>> @@ -15608,8 +15606,6 @@ rs6000_emit_vector_cond_expr (rtx dest, rtx >>> op_true, rtx op_false, >>>       case GEU: >>>       case LTU: >>>       case LEU: >>> -      /* Mark unsigned tests with CCUNSmode.  */ >>> -      cc_mode = CCUNSmode; >>>         /* Invert condition to avoid compound test if necessary.  */ >>>         if (rcode == GEU || rcode == LEU) >> >> So this is related to the _uns thing.  Could you split off that change? >> Probably as an earlier patch (but either works for me). > > Not related to the ALTIVEC_BUILTIN_VSEL_2DI_UNS things, previously cc_mode > is a parameter to generate the condition for IF_THEN_ELSE instruction, now > we don't need it again as we use IOR (AND... AND...) style, remove it to > avoid > build error. > > > -  cond2 = gen_rtx_fmt_ee (NE, cc_mode, gen_lowpart (dest_mode, mask), > -                         CONST0_RTX (dest_mode)); > -  emit_insn (gen_rtx_SET (dest, > -                         gen_rtx_IF_THEN_ELSE (dest_mode, > -                                               cond2, > -                                               op_true, > -                                               op_false))); > +  rtx tmp = gen_rtx_IOR (dest_mode, > +                        gen_rtx_AND (dest_mode, gen_rtx_NOT (dest_mode, > mask), > +                                     op_false), > +                        gen_rtx_AND (dest_mode, mask, op_true)); > +  emit_insn (gen_rtx_SET (dest, tmp)); > > >> >>> @@ -15629,6 +15625,9 @@ rs6000_emit_vector_cond_expr (rtx dest, rtx >>> op_true, rtx op_false, >>>     if (!mask) >>>       return 0; >>> +  if (mask_mode != dest_mode) >>> +      mask = simplify_gen_subreg (dest_mode, mask, mask_mode, 0); >> >> Indent just two characters please: line continuations (usually) align, >> but indents do not.> >> Can you fold vsel and xxsel together completely?  They have exactly the >> same semantics!  This does not have to be in this patch of course. > > I noticed that vperm/xxperm are folded together, do you mean fold > vsel/xxsel > like them?  It's attached as: > 0002-rs6000-Fold-xxsel-to-vsel-since-they-have-same-seman.patch > > > Thanks, > Xionghu -- Thanks, Xionghu