[PATCH] RISC-V: costs: miscomputed shiftadd_cost triggering synth_mult [PR/108987]

[PATCH] RISC-V: costs: miscomputed shiftadd_cost triggering synth_mult [PR/108987]

[Vineet Gupta]

This showed up as dynamic icount regression in SPEC 531.deepsjeng with upstream
gcc (vs. gcc 12.2). gcc was resorting to synthetic multiply using shift+add(s)
even when multiply had clear cost benefit.

|00000000000133b8 <see(state_t*, int, int, int, int) [clone .constprop.0]+0x382>:
|   133b8:	srl	a3,a1,s6
|   133bc:	and	a3,a3,s5
|   133c0:	slli	a4,a3,0x9
|   133c4:	add	a4,a4,a3
|   133c6:	slli	a4,a4,0x9
|   133c8:	add	a4,a4,a3
|   133ca:	slli	a3,a4,0x1b
|   133ce:	add	a4,a4,a3

vs. gcc 12 doing something lke below.

|00000000000131c4 <see(state_t*, int, int, int, int) [clone .constprop.0]+0x35c>:
|   131c4:	ld	s1,8(sp)
|   131c6:	srl	a3,a1,s4
|   131ca:	and	a3,a3,s11
|   131ce:	mul	a3,a3,s1

Bisected this to f90cb39235c4 ("RISC-V: costs: support shift-and-add in
strength-reduction"). The intent was to optimize cost for
shift-add-pow2-{1,2,3} corresponding to bitmanip insns SH*ADD, but ended
up doing that for all shift values which seems to favor synthezing
multiply among others.

The bug itself is trivial, IN_RANGE() calling pow2p_hwi() which returns bool
vs. exact_log2() returning power of 2.

This fix also requires update to the test introduced by the same commit
which now generates MUL vs. synthesizing it.

gcc/Changelog:

	* config/riscv/riscv.cc (riscv_rtx_costs): Fixed IN_RANGE() to
	  use exact_log2().

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

	* gcc.target/riscv/zba-shNadd-07.c: f2(i*783) now generates MUL vs.
	  5 insn sh1add+slli+add+slli+sub.
	* gcc.target/riscv/pr108987.c: New test.

Signed-off-by: Vineet Gupta <vineetg@rivosinc.com>
---
 gcc/config/riscv/riscv.cc                      | 3 ++-
 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/pr108987.c      | 9 +++++++++
 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/zba-shNadd-07.c | 6 +++---
 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/pr108987.c

diff --git a/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.cc b/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.cc
index e36ff05695a6..2cf172f59c28 100644
--- a/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.cc
+++ b/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.cc
@@ -2496,7 +2496,8 @@ riscv_rtx_costs (rtx x, machine_mode mode, int outer_code, int opno ATTRIBUTE_UN
 	  && GET_CODE (XEXP (x, 0)) == MULT
 	  && REG_P (XEXP (XEXP (x, 0), 0))
 	  && CONST_INT_P (XEXP (XEXP (x, 0), 1))
-	  && IN_RANGE (pow2p_hwi (INTVAL (XEXP (XEXP (x, 0), 1))), 1, 3))
+	  && pow2p_hwi (INTVAL (XEXP (XEXP (x, 0), 1)))
+	  && IN_RANGE (exact_log2 (INTVAL (XEXP (XEXP (x, 0), 1))), 1, 3))
 	{
 	  *total = COSTS_N_INSNS (1);
 	  return true;
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/pr108987.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/pr108987.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..6179c7e13a45
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/pr108987.c
@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-march=rv64gc_zba -mabi=lp64 -O2" } */
+
+unsigned long long f5(unsigned long long i)
+{
+  return i * 0x0202020202020202ULL;
+}
+
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "mul" 1 } } */
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/zba-shNadd-07.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/zba-shNadd-07.c
index 98d35e1da9b4..93da241c9b60 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/zba-shNadd-07.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/zba-shNadd-07.c
@@ -26,6 +26,6 @@ f4 (unsigned long i)
 }
 
 /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "sh2add" 2 } } */
-/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "sh1add" 2 } } */
-/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "slli" 5 } } */
-/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "mul" 1 } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "sh1add" 1 } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "slli" 3 } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "mul" 2 } } */
-- 
2.34.1

Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: costs: miscomputed shiftadd_cost triggering synth_mult [PR/108987]

[Philipp Tomsich]

On Wed, 1 Mar 2023 at 20:53, Vineet Gupta <vineetg@rivosinc.com> wrote:
>
> This showed up as dynamic icount regression in SPEC 531.deepsjeng with upstream
> gcc (vs. gcc 12.2). gcc was resorting to synthetic multiply using shift+add(s)
> even when multiply had clear cost benefit.
>
> |00000000000133b8 <see(state_t*, int, int, int, int) [clone .constprop.0]+0x382>:
> |   133b8:      srl     a3,a1,s6
> |   133bc:      and     a3,a3,s5
> |   133c0:      slli    a4,a3,0x9
> |   133c4:      add     a4,a4,a3
> |   133c6:      slli    a4,a4,0x9
> |   133c8:      add     a4,a4,a3
> |   133ca:      slli    a3,a4,0x1b
> |   133ce:      add     a4,a4,a3
>
> vs. gcc 12 doing something lke below.
>
> |00000000000131c4 <see(state_t*, int, int, int, int) [clone .constprop.0]+0x35c>:
> |   131c4:      ld      s1,8(sp)
> |   131c6:      srl     a3,a1,s4
> |   131ca:      and     a3,a3,s11
> |   131ce:      mul     a3,a3,s1
>
> Bisected this to f90cb39235c4 ("RISC-V: costs: support shift-and-add in
> strength-reduction"). The intent was to optimize cost for
> shift-add-pow2-{1,2,3} corresponding to bitmanip insns SH*ADD, but ended
> up doing that for all shift values which seems to favor synthezing
> multiply among others.
>
> The bug itself is trivial, IN_RANGE() calling pow2p_hwi() which returns bool
> vs. exact_log2() returning power of 2.
>
> This fix also requires update to the test introduced by the same commit
> which now generates MUL vs. synthesizing it.
>
> gcc/Changelog:
>
>         * config/riscv/riscv.cc (riscv_rtx_costs): Fixed IN_RANGE() to
>           use exact_log2().
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
>         * gcc.target/riscv/zba-shNadd-07.c: f2(i*783) now generates MUL vs.
>           5 insn sh1add+slli+add+slli+sub.
>         * gcc.target/riscv/pr108987.c: New test.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vineet Gupta <vineetg@rivosinc.com>

Reviewed-by: Philipp Tomsich <philipp.tomsich@vrull.eu>

Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: costs: miscomputed shiftadd_cost triggering synth_mult [PR/108987]

[Kito Cheng]

Committed 2 weeks ago but apparently I didn't send mail to say that,
thanks Vineet.

On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 3:56 AM Philipp Tomsich <philipp.tomsich@vrull.eu> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 1 Mar 2023 at 20:53, Vineet Gupta <vineetg@rivosinc.com> wrote:
> >
> > This showed up as dynamic icount regression in SPEC 531.deepsjeng with upstream
> > gcc (vs. gcc 12.2). gcc was resorting to synthetic multiply using shift+add(s)
> > even when multiply had clear cost benefit.
> >
> > |00000000000133b8 <see(state_t*, int, int, int, int) [clone .constprop.0]+0x382>:
> > |   133b8:      srl     a3,a1,s6
> > |   133bc:      and     a3,a3,s5
> > |   133c0:      slli    a4,a3,0x9
> > |   133c4:      add     a4,a4,a3
> > |   133c6:      slli    a4,a4,0x9
> > |   133c8:      add     a4,a4,a3
> > |   133ca:      slli    a3,a4,0x1b
> > |   133ce:      add     a4,a4,a3
> >
> > vs. gcc 12 doing something lke below.
> >
> > |00000000000131c4 <see(state_t*, int, int, int, int) [clone .constprop.0]+0x35c>:
> > |   131c4:      ld      s1,8(sp)
> > |   131c6:      srl     a3,a1,s4
> > |   131ca:      and     a3,a3,s11
> > |   131ce:      mul     a3,a3,s1
> >
> > Bisected this to f90cb39235c4 ("RISC-V: costs: support shift-and-add in
> > strength-reduction"). The intent was to optimize cost for
> > shift-add-pow2-{1,2,3} corresponding to bitmanip insns SH*ADD, but ended
> > up doing that for all shift values which seems to favor synthezing
> > multiply among others.
> >
> > The bug itself is trivial, IN_RANGE() calling pow2p_hwi() which returns bool
> > vs. exact_log2() returning power of 2.
> >
> > This fix also requires update to the test introduced by the same commit
> > which now generates MUL vs. synthesizing it.
> >
> > gcc/Changelog:
> >
> >         * config/riscv/riscv.cc (riscv_rtx_costs): Fixed IN_RANGE() to
> >           use exact_log2().
> >
> > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> >
> >         * gcc.target/riscv/zba-shNadd-07.c: f2(i*783) now generates MUL vs.
> >           5 insn sh1add+slli+add+slli+sub.
> >         * gcc.target/riscv/pr108987.c: New test.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Vineet Gupta <vineetg@rivosinc.com>
>
> Reviewed-by: Philipp Tomsich <philipp.tomsich@vrull.eu>