On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 at 16:17, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 11:21 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni > wrote: > > > > On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 at 19:36, Prathamesh Kulkarni > > wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 at 14:17, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 10:39 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > For the following test: > > > > > > > > > > svint32_t f(svint32_t v) > > > > > { > > > > > return svrev_s32 (svrev_s32 (v)); > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > We generate 2 rev instructions instead of nop: > > > > > f: > > > > > rev z0.s, z0.s > > > > > rev z0.s, z0.s > > > > > ret > > > > > > > > > > The attached patch tries to fix that by trying to recognize the following > > > > > pattern in match.pd: > > > > > v1 = VEC_PERM_EXPR (v0, v0, mask) > > > > > v2 = VEC_PERM_EXPR (v1, v1, mask) > > > > > --> > > > > > v2 = v0 > > > > > if mask is { nelts - 1, nelts - 2, nelts - 3, ... } > > > > > > > > > > Code-gen with patch: > > > > > f: > > > > > ret > > > > > > > > > > Bootstrap+test passes on aarch64-linux-gnu, and SVE bootstrap in progress. > > > > > Does it look OK for stage-1 ? > > > > > > > > I didn't look at the patch but tree-ssa-forwprop.cc:simplify_permutation should > > > > handle two consecutive permutes with the is_combined_permutation_identity > > > > which might need tweaking for VLA vectors > > > Hi Richard, > > > Thanks for the suggestions. The attached patch modifies > > > is_combined_permutation_identity > > > to recognize the above pattern. > > > Does it look OK ? > > > Bootstrap+test in progress on aarch64-linux-gnu and x86_64-linux-gnu. > > Hi, > > ping https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-April/615502.html > > Can you instead of def_stmt pass in a bool whether rhs1 is equal to rhs2 > and amend the function comment accordingly, say, > > tem = VEC_PERM ; > res = VEC_PERM ; > > SAME_P specifies whether op0 and op1 compare equal. */ > > + if (def_stmt) > + gcc_checking_assert (is_gimple_assign (def_stmt) > + && gimple_assign_rhs_code (def_stmt) == VEC_PERM_EXPR); > this is then unnecessary > > mask = fold_ternary (VEC_PERM_EXPR, TREE_TYPE (mask1), mask1, mask1, mask2); > + > + /* For VLA masks, check for the following pattern: > + v1 = VEC_PERM_EXPR (v0, v0, mask) > + v2 = VEC_PERM_EXPR (v1, v1, mask) > + --> > + v2 = v0 > > you are not using 'mask' so please defer fold_ternary until after your > special-case. > > + if (operand_equal_p (mask1, mask2, 0) > + && !VECTOR_CST_NELTS (mask1).is_constant () > + && def_stmt > + && operand_equal_p (gimple_assign_rhs1 (def_stmt), > + gimple_assign_rhs2 (def_stmt), 0)) > + { > + vec_perm_builder builder; > + if (tree_to_vec_perm_builder (&builder, mask1)) > + { > + poly_uint64 nelts = TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS (TREE_TYPE (mask1)); > + vec_perm_indices sel (builder, 1, nelts); > + if (sel.series_p (0, 1, nelts - 1, -1)) > + return 1; > + } > + return 0; > > I'm defering to Richard whether this is the correct way to check for a vector > reversing mask (I wonder how constructing such mask is even possible) Hi Richard, Thanks for the suggestions, I have updated the patch accordingly. The following hunk from svrev_impl::fold() constructs mask in reverse: /* Permute as { nelts - 1, nelts - 2, nelts - 3, ... }. */ poly_int64 nelts = TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS (TREE_TYPE (f.lhs)); vec_perm_builder builder (nelts, 1, 3); for (int i = 0; i < 3; ++i) builder.quick_push (nelts - i - 1); return fold_permute (f, builder); To see if mask chooses elements in reverse, I borrowed it from function comment for series_p in vec-perm-indices.cc: /* Return true if index OUT_BASE + I * OUT_STEP selects input element IN_BASE + I * IN_STEP. For example, the call to test whether a permute reverses a vector of N elements would be: series_p (0, 1, N - 1, -1) which would return true for { N - 1, N - 2, N - 3, ... }. */ Thanks, Prathamesh > > Richard. > > > Thanks, > > Prathamesh > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Prathamesh > > > > > > > > Richard. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Prathamesh