On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 at 20:47, Richard Sandiford wrote: > > Prathamesh Kulkarni writes: > > On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 at 07:10, Prathamesh Kulkarni > > wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 at 20:50, Richard Sandiford > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > Prathamesh Kulkarni writes: > >> > >> >> > I have attached a patch that extends the transform if one half is dup > >> > >> >> > and other is set of constants. > >> > >> >> > For eg: > >> > >> >> > int8x16_t f(int8_t x) > >> > >> >> > { > >> > >> >> > return (int8x16_t) { x, 1, x, 2, x, 3, x, 4, x, 5, x, 6, x, 7, x, 8 }; > >> > >> >> > } > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > code-gen trunk: > >> > >> >> > f: > >> > >> >> > adrp x1, .LC0 > >> > >> >> > ldr q0, [x1, #:lo12:.LC0] > >> > >> >> > ins v0.b[0], w0 > >> > >> >> > ins v0.b[2], w0 > >> > >> >> > ins v0.b[4], w0 > >> > >> >> > ins v0.b[6], w0 > >> > >> >> > ins v0.b[8], w0 > >> > >> >> > ins v0.b[10], w0 > >> > >> >> > ins v0.b[12], w0 > >> > >> >> > ins v0.b[14], w0 > >> > >> >> > ret > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > code-gen with patch: > >> > >> >> > f: > >> > >> >> > dup v0.16b, w0 > >> > >> >> > adrp x0, .LC0 > >> > >> >> > ldr q1, [x0, #:lo12:.LC0] > >> > >> >> > zip1 v0.16b, v0.16b, v1.16b > >> > >> >> > ret > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > Bootstrapped+tested on aarch64-linux-gnu. > >> > >> >> > Does it look OK ? > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> Looks like a nice improvement. It'll need to wait for GCC 14 now though. > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> However, rather than handle this case specially, I think we should instead > >> > >> >> take a divide-and-conquer approach: split the initialiser into even and > >> > >> >> odd elements, find the best way of loading each part, then compare the > >> > >> >> cost of these sequences + ZIP with the cost of the fallback code (the code > >> > >> >> later in aarch64_expand_vector_init). > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> For example, doing that would allow: > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> { x, y, 0, y, 0, y, 0, y, 0, y } > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> to be loaded more easily, even though the even elements aren't wholly > >> > >> >> constant. > >> > >> > Hi Richard, > >> > >> > I have attached a prototype patch based on the above approach. > >> > >> > It subsumes specializing for above {x, y, x, y, x, y, x, y} case by generating > >> > >> > same sequence, thus I removed that hunk, and improves the following cases: > >> > >> > > >> > >> > (a) > >> > >> > int8x16_t f_s16(int8_t x) > >> > >> > { > >> > >> > return (int8x16_t) { x, 1, x, 2, x, 3, x, 4, > >> > >> > x, 5, x, 6, x, 7, x, 8 }; > >> > >> > } > >> > >> > > >> > >> > code-gen trunk: > >> > >> > f_s16: > >> > >> > adrp x1, .LC0 > >> > >> > ldr q0, [x1, #:lo12:.LC0] > >> > >> > ins v0.b[0], w0 > >> > >> > ins v0.b[2], w0 > >> > >> > ins v0.b[4], w0 > >> > >> > ins v0.b[6], w0 > >> > >> > ins v0.b[8], w0 > >> > >> > ins v0.b[10], w0 > >> > >> > ins v0.b[12], w0 > >> > >> > ins v0.b[14], w0 > >> > >> > ret > >> > >> > > >> > >> > code-gen with patch: > >> > >> > f_s16: > >> > >> > dup v0.16b, w0 > >> > >> > adrp x0, .LC0 > >> > >> > ldr q1, [x0, #:lo12:.LC0] > >> > >> > zip1 v0.16b, v0.16b, v1.16b > >> > >> > ret > >> > >> > > >> > >> > (b) > >> > >> > int8x16_t f_s16(int8_t x, int8_t y) > >> > >> > { > >> > >> > return (int8x16_t) { x, y, 1, y, 2, y, 3, y, > >> > >> > 4, y, 5, y, 6, y, 7, y }; > >> > >> > } > >> > >> > > >> > >> > code-gen trunk: > >> > >> > f_s16: > >> > >> > adrp x2, .LC0 > >> > >> > ldr q0, [x2, #:lo12:.LC0] > >> > >> > ins v0.b[0], w0 > >> > >> > ins v0.b[1], w1 > >> > >> > ins v0.b[3], w1 > >> > >> > ins v0.b[5], w1 > >> > >> > ins v0.b[7], w1 > >> > >> > ins v0.b[9], w1 > >> > >> > ins v0.b[11], w1 > >> > >> > ins v0.b[13], w1 > >> > >> > ins v0.b[15], w1 > >> > >> > ret > >> > >> > > >> > >> > code-gen patch: > >> > >> > f_s16: > >> > >> > adrp x2, .LC0 > >> > >> > dup v1.16b, w1 > >> > >> > ldr q0, [x2, #:lo12:.LC0] > >> > >> > ins v0.b[0], w0 > >> > >> > zip1 v0.16b, v0.16b, v1.16b > >> > >> > ret > >> > >> > >> > >> Nice. > >> > >> > >> > >> > There are a couple of issues I have come across: > >> > >> > (1) Choosing element to pad vector. > >> > >> > For eg, if we are initiailizing a vector say { x, y, 0, y, 1, y, 2, y } > >> > >> > with mode V8HI. > >> > >> > We split it into { x, 0, 1, 2 } and { y, y, y, y} > >> > >> > However since the mode is V8HI, we would need to pad the above split vectors > >> > >> > with 4 more elements to match up to vector length. > >> > >> > For {x, 0, 1, 2} using any constant is the obvious choice while for {y, y, y, y} > >> > >> > using 'y' is the obvious choice thus making them: > >> > >> > {x, 0, 1, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0} and {y, y, y, y, y, y, y, y} > >> > >> > These would be then merged using zip1 which would discard the lower half > >> > >> > of both vectors. > >> > >> > Currently I encoded the above two heuristics in > >> > >> > aarch64_expand_vector_init_get_padded_elem: > >> > >> > (a) If split portion contains a constant, use the constant to pad the vector. > >> > >> > (b) If split portion only contains variables, then use the most > >> > >> > frequently repeating variable > >> > >> > to pad the vector. > >> > >> > I suppose tho this could be improved ? > >> > >> > >> > >> I think we should just build two 64-bit vectors (V4HIs) and use a subreg > >> > >> to fill the upper elements with undefined values. > >> > >> > >> > >> I suppose in principle we would have the same problem when splitting > >> > >> a 64-bit vector into 2 32-bit vectors, but it's probably better to punt > >> > >> on that for now. Eventually it would be worth adding full support for > >> > >> 32-bit Advanced SIMD modes (with necessary restrictions for FP exceptions) > >> > >> but it's quite a big task. The 128-bit to 64-bit split is the one that > >> > >> matters most. > >> > >> > >> > >> > (2) Setting cost for zip1: > >> > >> > Currently it returns 4 as cost for following zip1 insn: > >> > >> > (set (reg:V8HI 102) > >> > >> > (unspec:V8HI [ > >> > >> > (reg:V8HI 103) > >> > >> > (reg:V8HI 108) > >> > >> > ] UNSPEC_ZIP1)) > >> > >> > I am not sure if that's correct, or if not, what cost to use in this case > >> > >> > for zip1 ? > >> > >> > >> > >> TBH 4 seems a bit optimistic. It's COSTS_N_INSNS (1), whereas the > >> > >> generic advsimd_vec_cost::permute_cost is 2 insns. But the costs of > >> > >> inserts are probably underestimated to the same extent, so hopefully > >> > >> things work out. > >> > >> > >> > >> So it's probably best to accept the costs as they're currently given. > >> > >> Changing them would need extensive testing. > >> > >> > >> > >> However, one of the advantages of the split is that it allows the > >> > >> subvectors to be built in parallel. When optimising for speed, > >> > >> it might make sense to take the maximum of the subsequence costs > >> > >> and add the cost of the zip to that. > >> > > Hi Richard, > >> > > Thanks for the suggestions. > >> > > In the attached patch, it recurses only if nelts == 16 to punt for 64 > >> > > -> 32 bit split, > >> > > >> > It should be based on the size rather than the number of elements. > >> > The example we talked about above involved building V8HIs from two > >> > V4HIs, which is also valid. > >> Right, sorry got mixed up. The attached patch punts if vector_size == 64 by > >> resorting to fallback, which handles V8HI cases. > >> For eg: > >> int16x8_t f(int16_t x) > >> { > >> return (int16x8_t) { x, 1, x, 2, x, 3, x, 4 }; > >> } > >> > >> code-gen with patch: > >> f: > >> dup v0.4h, w0 > >> adrp x0, .LC0 > >> ldr d1, [x0, #:lo12:.LC0] > >> zip1 v0.8h, v0.8h, v1.8h > >> ret > >> > >> Just to clarify, we punt on 64 bit vector size, because there is no > >> 32-bit vector available, > >> to build 2 32-bit vectors for even and odd halves, and then "extend" > >> them with subreg ? > > Right. And if we want to fix that, I think the starting point would > be to add (general) 32-bit vector support first. > > >> It also punts if n_elts < 8, because I am not sure > >> if it's profitable to do recursion+merging for 4 or lesser elements. > >> Does it look OK ? > > Splitting { x, y, x, y } should at least be a size win over 4 individual > moves/inserts. Possibly a speed win too if x and y are in general > registers. > > So I think n_elts < 4 might be better. If the costs get a case wrong, > we should fix the costs. > > >> > > and uses std::max(even_init, odd_init) + insn_cost (zip1_insn) for > >> > > computing total cost of the sequence. > >> > > > >> > > So, for following case: > >> > > int8x16_t f_s8(int8_t x) > >> > > { > >> > > return (int8x16_t) { x, 1, x, 2, x, 3, x, 4, > >> > > x, 5, x, 6, x, 7, x, 8 }; > >> > > } > >> > > > >> > > it now generates: > >> > > f_s16: > >> > > dup v0.8b, w0 > >> > > adrp x0, .LC0 > >> > > ldr d1, [x0, #:lo12:.LC0] > >> > > zip1 v0.16b, v0.16b, v1.16b > >> > > ret > >> > > > >> > > Which I assume is correct, since zip1 will merge the lower halves of > >> > > two vectors while leaving the upper halves undefined ? > >> > > >> > Yeah, it looks valid, but I would say that zip1 ignores the upper halves > >> > (rather than leaving them undefined). > >> Yes, sorry for mis-phrasing. > >> > >> For the following test: > >> int16x8_t f_s16 (int16_t x0, int16_t x1, int16_t x2, int16_t x3, > >> int16_t x4, int16_t x5, int16_t x6, int16_t x7) > >> { > >> return (int16x8_t) { x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5, x6, x7 }; > >> } > >> > >> it chose to go recursive+zip1 route since we take max (cost > >> (odd_init), cost (even_init)) and add > >> cost of zip1 insn which turns out to be lesser than cost of fallback: > >> > >> f_s16: > >> sxth w0, w0 > >> sxth w1, w1 > >> fmov d0, x0 > >> fmov d1, x1 > >> ins v0.h[1], w2 > >> ins v1.h[1], w3 > >> ins v0.h[2], w4 > >> ins v1.h[2], w5 > >> ins v0.h[3], w6 > >> ins v1.h[3], w7 > >> zip1 v0.8h, v0.8h, v1.8h > >> ret > >> > >> I assume that's OK since it has fewer dependencies compared to > >> fallback code-gen even if it's longer ? > >> With -Os the cost for sequence is taken as cost(odd_init) + > >> cost(even_init) + cost(zip1_insn) > >> which turns out to be same as cost for fallback sequence and it > >> generates the fallback code-sequence: > >> > >> f_s16: > >> sxth w0, w0 > >> fmov s0, w0 > >> ins v0.h[1], w1 > >> ins v0.h[2], w2 > >> ins v0.h[3], w3 > >> ins v0.h[4], w4 > >> ins v0.h[5], w5 > >> ins v0.h[6], w6 > >> ins v0.h[7], w7 > >> ret > >> > > Forgot to remove the hunk handling interleaving case, done in the > > attached patch. > > > > Thanks, > > Prathamesh > >> Thanks, > >> Prathamesh > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > Richard > > > > diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.cc b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.cc > > index acc0cfe5f94..dd2a64d2e4e 100644 > > --- a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.cc > > +++ b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.cc > > @@ -21976,7 +21976,7 @@ aarch64_simd_make_constant (rtx vals) > > initialised to contain VALS. */ > > > > void > > -aarch64_expand_vector_init (rtx target, rtx vals) > > +aarch64_expand_vector_init_fallback (rtx target, rtx vals) > > The comment needs to be updated. Maybe: > > /* A subroutine of aarch64_expand_vector_init, with the same interface. > The caller has already tried a divide-and-conquer approach, so do > not consider that case here. */ > > > { > > machine_mode mode = GET_MODE (target); > > scalar_mode inner_mode = GET_MODE_INNER (mode); > > @@ -22036,38 +22036,6 @@ aarch64_expand_vector_init (rtx target, rtx vals) > > return; > > } > > > > - /* Check for interleaving case. > > - For eg if initializer is (int16x8_t) {x, y, x, y, x, y, x, y}. > > - Generate following code: > > - dup v0.h, x > > - dup v1.h, y > > - zip1 v0.h, v0.h, v1.h > > - for "large enough" initializer. */ > > - > > - if (n_elts >= 8) > > - { > > - int i; > > - for (i = 2; i < n_elts; i++) > > - if (!rtx_equal_p (XVECEXP (vals, 0, i), XVECEXP (vals, 0, i % 2))) > > - break; > > - > > - if (i == n_elts) > > - { > > - machine_mode mode = GET_MODE (target); > > - rtx dest[2]; > > - > > - for (int i = 0; i < 2; i++) > > - { > > - rtx x = expand_vector_broadcast (mode, XVECEXP (vals, 0, i)); > > - dest[i] = force_reg (mode, x); > > - } > > - > > - rtvec v = gen_rtvec (2, dest[0], dest[1]); > > - emit_set_insn (target, gen_rtx_UNSPEC (mode, v, UNSPEC_ZIP1)); > > - return; > > - } > > - } > > - > > enum insn_code icode = optab_handler (vec_set_optab, mode); > > gcc_assert (icode != CODE_FOR_nothing); > > > > @@ -22189,7 +22157,7 @@ aarch64_expand_vector_init (rtx target, rtx vals) > > } > > XVECEXP (copy, 0, i) = subst; > > } > > - aarch64_expand_vector_init (target, copy); > > + aarch64_expand_vector_init_fallback (target, copy); > > } > > > > /* Insert the variable lanes directly. */ > > @@ -22203,6 +22171,91 @@ aarch64_expand_vector_init (rtx target, rtx vals) > > } > > } > > > > +DEBUG_FUNCTION > > +static void > > +aarch64_expand_vector_init_debug_seq (rtx_insn *seq, const char *s) > > +{ > > + fprintf (stderr, "%s: %u\n", s, seq_cost (seq, !optimize_size)); > > + for (rtx_insn *i = seq; i; i = NEXT_INSN (i)) > > + { > > + debug_rtx (PATTERN (i)); > > + fprintf (stderr, "cost: %d\n", pattern_cost (PATTERN (i), !optimize_size)); > > + } > > +} > > I'm not sure we should commit this to the tree. > > > + > > +static rtx > > +aarch64_expand_vector_init_split_vals (machine_mode mode, rtx vals, bool even_p) > > How about calling this aarch64_unzip_vector_init? It needs a function > comment. > > > +{ > > + int n = XVECLEN (vals, 0); > > + machine_mode new_mode > > + = aarch64_simd_container_mode (GET_MODE_INNER (mode), 64); > > IMO it would be better to use "GET_MODE_BITSIZE (mode).to_constant () / 2" > or "GET_MODE_UNIT_BITSIZE (mode) * n / 2" for the second argument. > > > + rtvec vec = rtvec_alloc (n / 2); > > + for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) > > + RTVEC_ELT (vec, i) = (even_p) ? XVECEXP (vals, 0, 2 * i) > > + : XVECEXP (vals, 0, 2 * i + 1); > > + return gen_rtx_PARALLEL (new_mode, vec); > > +} > > + > > +/* > > +The function does the following: > > +(a) Generates code sequence by splitting VALS into even and odd halves, > > + and recursively calling itself to initialize them and then merge using > > + zip1. > > +(b) Generate code sequence directly using aarch64_expand_vector_init_fallback. > > +(c) Compare the cost of code sequences generated by (a) and (b), and choose > > + the more efficient one. > > +*/ > > I think we should keep the current description of the interface, > before the describing the implementation: > > /* Expand a vector initialization sequence, such that TARGET is > initialized to contain VALS. */ > > (includes an s/s/z/). > > And it's probably better to describe the implementation inside > the function. > > Most comments are written in imperative style, so how about: > > /* Try decomposing the initializer into even and odd halves and > then ZIP them together. Use the resulting sequence if it is > strictly cheaper than loading VALS directly. > > Prefer the fallback sequence in the event of a tie, since it > will tend to use fewer registers. */ > > > + > > +void > > +aarch64_expand_vector_init (rtx target, rtx vals) > > +{ > > + machine_mode mode = GET_MODE (target); > > + int n_elts = XVECLEN (vals, 0); > > + > > + if (n_elts < 8 > > + || known_eq (GET_MODE_BITSIZE (mode), 64)) > > Might be more robust to test maybe_ne (GET_MODE_BITSIZE (mode), 128) > > > + { > > + aarch64_expand_vector_init_fallback (target, vals); > > + return; > > + } > > + > > + start_sequence (); > > + rtx dest[2]; > > + unsigned costs[2]; > > + for (int i = 0; i < 2; i++) > > + { > > + start_sequence (); > > + dest[i] = gen_reg_rtx (mode); > > + rtx new_vals > > + = aarch64_expand_vector_init_split_vals (mode, vals, (i % 2) == 0); > > + rtx tmp_reg = gen_reg_rtx (GET_MODE (new_vals)); > > + aarch64_expand_vector_init (tmp_reg, new_vals); > > + dest[i] = gen_rtx_SUBREG (mode, tmp_reg, 0); > > Maybe "src" or "halves" would be a better name than "dest", given that > the rtx isn't actually the destination of the subsequence. > > > + rtx_insn *rec_seq = get_insns (); > > + end_sequence (); > > + costs[i] = seq_cost (rec_seq, !optimize_size); > > + emit_insn (rec_seq); > > + } > > + > > + rtvec v = gen_rtvec (2, dest[0], dest[1]); > > + rtx_insn *zip1_insn > > + = emit_set_insn (target, gen_rtx_UNSPEC (mode, v, UNSPEC_ZIP1)); > > + unsigned seq_total_cost > > + = (!optimize_size) ? std::max (costs[0], costs[1]) : costs[0] + costs[1]; > > This is the wrong way round: max should be for speed and addition > for size. I assumed, !optimize_size meant optimizing for speed ? So (!optimize_size) ? std::max (costs[0] ,costs[1]) : costs[0] + costs[1] would imply taking max of the two for speed and addition for size, or am I misunderstanding ? I have done rest of the changes in attached patch. Thanks, Prathamesh > > Thanks, > Richard > > > + seq_total_cost += insn_cost (zip1_insn, !optimize_size); > > + > > + rtx_insn *seq = get_insns (); > > + end_sequence (); > > + > > + start_sequence (); > > + aarch64_expand_vector_init_fallback (target, vals); > > + rtx_insn *fallback_seq = get_insns (); > > + unsigned fallback_seq_cost = seq_cost (fallback_seq, !optimize_size); > > + end_sequence (); > > + > > + emit_insn (seq_total_cost < fallback_seq_cost ? seq : fallback_seq); > > +} > > + > > /* Emit RTL corresponding to: > > insr TARGET, ELEM. */ > > > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/interleave-init-1.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/vec-init-18.c > > similarity index 82% > > rename from gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/interleave-init-1.c > > rename to gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/vec-init-18.c > > index ee775048589..e812d3946de 100644 > > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/interleave-init-1.c > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/vec-init-18.c > > @@ -7,8 +7,8 @@ > > /* > > ** foo: > > ** ... > > -** dup v[0-9]+\.8h, w[0-9]+ > > -** dup v[0-9]+\.8h, w[0-9]+ > > +** dup v[0-9]+\.4h, w[0-9]+ > > +** dup v[0-9]+\.4h, w[0-9]+ > > ** zip1 v[0-9]+\.8h, v[0-9]+\.8h, v[0-9]+\.8h > > ** ... > > ** ret > > @@ -23,8 +23,8 @@ int16x8_t foo(int16_t x, int y) > > /* > > ** foo2: > > ** ... > > -** dup v[0-9]+\.8h, w[0-9]+ > > -** movi v[0-9]+\.8h, 0x1 > > +** dup v[0-9]+\.4h, w[0-9]+ > > +** movi v[0-9]+\.4h, 0x1 > > ** zip1 v[0-9]+\.8h, v[0-9]+\.8h, v[0-9]+\.8h > > ** ... > > ** ret > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/vec-init-19.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/vec-init-19.c > > new file mode 100644 > > index 00000000000..e28fdcda29d > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/vec-init-19.c > > @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ > > +/* { dg-do compile } */ > > +/* { dg-options "-O3" } */ > > +/* { dg-final { check-function-bodies "**" "" "" } } */ > > + > > +#include > > + > > +/* > > +** f_s8: > > +** ... > > +** dup v[0-9]+\.8b, w[0-9]+ > > +** adrp x[0-9]+, \.LC[0-9]+ > > +** ldr d[0-9]+, \[x[0-9]+, #:lo12:.LC[0-9]+\] > > +** zip1 v[0-9]+\.16b, v[0-9]+\.16b, v[0-9]+\.16b > > +** ret > > +*/ > > + > > +int8x16_t f_s8(int8_t x) > > +{ > > + return (int8x16_t) { x, 1, x, 2, x, 3, x, 4, > > + x, 5, x, 6, x, 7, x, 8 }; > > +} > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/vec-init-20.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/vec-init-20.c > > new file mode 100644 > > index 00000000000..9366ca349b6 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/vec-init-20.c > > @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ > > +/* { dg-do compile } */ > > +/* { dg-options "-O3" } */ > > +/* { dg-final { check-function-bodies "**" "" "" } } */ > > + > > +#include > > + > > +/* > > +** f_s8: > > +** ... > > +** adrp x[0-9]+, \.LC[0-9]+ > > +** dup v[0-9]+\.8b, w[0-9]+ > > +** ldr d[0-9]+, \[x[0-9]+, #:lo12:\.LC[0-9]+\] > > +** ins v0\.b\[0\], w0 > > +** zip1 v[0-9]+\.16b, v[0-9]+\.16b, v[0-9]+\.16b > > +** ret > > +*/ > > + > > +int8x16_t f_s8(int8_t x, int8_t y) > > +{ > > + return (int8x16_t) { x, y, 1, y, 2, y, 3, y, > > + 4, y, 5, y, 6, y, 7, y }; > > +} > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/vec-init-21.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/vec-init-21.c > > new file mode 100644 > > index 00000000000..e16459486d7 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/vec-init-21.c > > @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ > > +/* { dg-do compile } */ > > +/* { dg-options "-O3" } */ > > +/* { dg-final { check-function-bodies "**" "" "" } } */ > > + > > +#include > > + > > +/* > > +** f_s8: > > +** ... > > +** adrp x[0-9]+, \.LC[0-9]+ > > +** ldr q[0-9]+, \[x[0-9]+, #:lo12:\.LC[0-9]+\] > > +** ins v0\.b\[0\], w0 > > +** ins v0\.b\[1\], w1 > > +** ... > > +** ret > > +*/ > > + > > +int8x16_t f_s8(int8_t x, int8_t y) > > +{ > > + return (int8x16_t) { x, y, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, > > + 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 }; > > +} > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/vec-init-22-size.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/vec-init-22-size.c > > new file mode 100644 > > index 00000000000..8f35854c008 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/vec-init-22-size.c > > @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@ > > +/* { dg-do compile } */ > > +/* { dg-options "-Os" } */ > > +/* { dg-final { check-function-bodies "**" "" "" } } */ > > + > > +/* Verify that fallback code-sequence is chosen over > > + recursively generated code-sequence merged with zip1. */ > > + > > +/* > > +** f_s16: > > +** ... > > +** sxth w0, w0 > > +** fmov s0, w0 > > +** ins v0\.h\[1\], w1 > > +** ins v0\.h\[2\], w2 > > +** ins v0\.h\[3\], w3 > > +** ins v0\.h\[4\], w4 > > +** ins v0\.h\[5\], w5 > > +** ins v0\.h\[6\], w6 > > +** ins v0\.h\[7\], w7 > > +** ... > > +** ret > > +*/ > > + > > +#include "vec-init-22.h" > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/vec-init-22-speed.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/vec-init-22-speed.c > > new file mode 100644 > > index 00000000000..172d56ffdf1 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/vec-init-22-speed.c > > @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ > > +/* { dg-do compile } */ > > +/* { dg-options "-O3" } */ > > +/* { dg-final { check-function-bodies "**" "" "" } } */ > > + > > +/* Verify that we recursively generate code for even and odd halves > > + instead of fallback code. This is so despite the longer code-gen > > + because it has fewer dependencies and thus has lesser cost. */ > > + > > +/* > > +** f_s16: > > +** ... > > +** sxth w0, w0 > > +** sxth w1, w1 > > +** fmov d0, x0 > > +** fmov d1, x1 > > +** ins v[0-9]+\.h\[1\], w2 > > +** ins v[0-9]+\.h\[1\], w3 > > +** ins v[0-9]+\.h\[2\], w4 > > +** ins v[0-9]+\.h\[2\], w5 > > +** ins v[0-9]+\.h\[3\], w6 > > +** ins v[0-9]+\.h\[3\], w7 > > +** zip1 v[0-9]+\.8h, v[0-9]+\.8h, v[0-9]+\.8h > > +** ... > > +** ret > > +*/ > > + > > +#include "vec-init-22.h" > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/vec-init-22.h b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/vec-init-22.h > > new file mode 100644 > > index 00000000000..15b889d4097 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/vec-init-22.h > > @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ > > +#include > > + > > +int16x8_t f_s16 (int16_t x0, int16_t x1, int16_t x2, int16_t x3, > > + int16_t x4, int16_t x5, int16_t x6, int16_t x7) > > +{ > > + return (int16x8_t) { x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5, x6, x7 }; > > +}