On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 at 20:51, Christophe LYON
<christophe.lyon@foss.st.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 29/06/2021 12:46, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 at 14:48, Christophe LYON
> > <christophe.lyon@foss.st.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 28/06/2021 10:40, Kyrylo Tkachov via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Prathamesh Kulkarni <prathamesh.kulkarni@linaro.org>
> >>>> Sent: 28 June 2021 09:38
> >>>> To: Kyrylo Tkachov <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com>
> >>>> Cc: Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>; gcc Patches <gcc-
> >>>> patches@gcc.gnu.org>
> >>>> Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector
> >>>> constructor
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 22:01, Kyrylo Tkachov <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: Prathamesh Kulkarni <prathamesh.kulkarni@linaro.org>
> >>>>>> Sent: 14 June 2021 09:02
> >>>>>> To: Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>
> >>>>>> Cc: gcc Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Kyrylo Tkachov
> >>>>>> <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com>
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector
> >>>>>> constructor
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 at 15:58, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> >>>>>> <prathamesh.kulkarni@linaro.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 13:15, Christophe Lyon
> >>>> <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 09:27, Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches
> >>>>>>>> <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>> As mentioned in PR, for the following test-case:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> #include <arm_neon.h>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> bfloat16x4_t f1 (bfloat16_t a)
> >>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>     return vdup_n_bf16 (a);
> >>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> bfloat16x4_t f2 (bfloat16_t a)
> >>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>     return (bfloat16x4_t) {a, a, a, a};
> >>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Compiling with arm-linux-gnueabi -O3 -mfpu=neon -mfloat-
> >>>> abi=softfp
> >>>>>>>>> -march=armv8.2-a+bf16+fp16 results in f2 not being vectorized:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> f1:
> >>>>>>>>>           vdup.16 d16, r0
> >>>>>>>>>           vmov    r0, r1, d16  @ v4bf
> >>>>>>>>>           bx      lr
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> f2:
> >>>>>>>>>           mov     r3, r0  @ __bf16
> >>>>>>>>>           adr     r1, .L4
> >>>>>>>>>           ldrd    r0, [r1]
> >>>>>>>>>           mov     r2, r3  @ __bf16
> >>>>>>>>>           mov     ip, r3  @ __bf16
> >>>>>>>>>           bfi     r1, r2, #0, #16
> >>>>>>>>>           bfi     r0, ip, #0, #16
> >>>>>>>>>           bfi     r1, r3, #16, #16
> >>>>>>>>>           bfi     r0, r2, #16, #16
> >>>>>>>>>           bx      lr
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> This seems to happen because vec_init pattern in neon.md has VDQ
> >>>>>> mode
> >>>>>>>>> iterator, which doesn't include V4BF. In attached patch, I changed
> >>>>>>>>> mode
> >>>>>>>>> to VDQX which seems to work for the test-case, and the compiler
> >>>> now
> >>>>>> generates:
> >>>>>>>>> f2:
> >>>>>>>>>           vdup.16 d16, r0
> >>>>>>>>>           vmov    r0, r1, d16  @ v4bf
> >>>>>>>>>           bx      lr
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> However, the pattern is also gated on TARGET_HAVE_MVE and I am
> >>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>> sure if either VDQ or VDQX are correct modes for MVE since MVE
> >>>> has
> >>>>>>>>> only 128-bit vectors ?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I think patterns common to both Neon and MVE should be moved to
> >>>>>>>> vec-common.md, I don't know why such patterns were left in
> >>>> neon.md.
> >>>>>>> Since we end up calling neon_expand_vector_init for both NEON and
> >>>> MVE,
> >>>>>>> I am not sure if we should separate the pattern ?
> >>>>>>> Would it make sense to FAIL if the mode size isn't 16 bytes for MVE as
> >>>>>>> in attached patch so
> >>>>>>> it will call neon_expand_vector_init only for 128-bit vectors ?
> >>>>>>> Altho hard-coding 16 in the pattern doesn't seem a good idea to me
> >>>> either.
> >>>>>> ping https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-June/572342.html
> >>>>>> (attaching patch as text).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> --- a/gcc/config/arm/neon.md
> >>>>> +++ b/gcc/config/arm/neon.md
> >>>>> @@ -459,10 +459,12 @@
> >>>>>    )
> >>>>>
> >>>>>    (define_expand "vec_init<mode><V_elem_l>"
> >>>>> -  [(match_operand:VDQ 0 "s_register_operand")
> >>>>> +  [(match_operand:VDQX 0 "s_register_operand")
> >>>>>       (match_operand 1 "" "")]
> >>>>>      "TARGET_NEON || TARGET_HAVE_MVE"
> >>>>>    {
> >>>>> +  if (TARGET_HAVE_MVE && GET_MODE_SIZE (GET_MODE
> >>>> (operands[0])) != 16)
> >>>>> +    FAIL;
> >>>>>      neon_expand_vector_init (operands[0], operands[1]);
> >>>>>      DONE;
> >>>>>    })
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think we should move this to vec-common.md like Christophe said.
> >>>>> Perhaps rather than making it FAIL for non-16 MVE sizes we just disable it in
> >>>> the expander condition?
> >>>>> "TARGET_NEON || (TARGET_HAVE_MVE && GET_MODE_SIZE (<
> >>>> VDQ>mode) != 16)"
> >>>> Is it OK to use <MODE>mode ? Because using <VDQ>mode resulted in lot
> >>>> of build errors.
> >>>> Also, I think the comparison should be inverted, ie, GET_MODE_SIZE
> >>>> (<MODE>mode) == 16 since
> >>>> we want to make the pattern pass if target is MVE and vector size is 16 bytes ?
> >>>> Do these changes in attached patch look OK ?
> >>> Yes, you're right.
> >>
> >> Can't this be ARM_HAVE_<MODE>_ARITH like in most expanders in vec-common.md?
> >>
> >> (maybe with a && !TARGET_REALLY_IWMMXT if needed)
> > I wonder if this should be ARM_HAVE_<MODE>_LDST instead since we're
> > initializing the vector ?
>
>
> Well, it really depends on which modes you want to enable.
>
>
> Looks like your move VDQ -> VDQ adds V4BF, V8BF and DI.
>
> Are they all OK for Neon?
>
> They are not OK for MVE.
>
> Ideally you could add testcases to cover to the supported and
> unsupported modes for both Neon and MVE.\
>
> Before your patch, the expander is enabled for MVE for 64 bit modes
> (V8QI, V4HI, V2SI): what happens in this case? Does the compiler crash
> or is there something else preventing the match?
Hi,
Apparently there is VALID_MVE_MODE macro, so is it better to use:
TARGET_NEON || (TARGET_HAVE_MVE && VALID_MVE_MODE(<MODE>mode))
as in the attached patch ?

Thanks,
Prathamesh
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Christophe
>
>
> > Thanks,
> > Prathamesh
> >>
> >> Christophe
> >>
> >>
> >>> Ok.
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Kyrill
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Prathamesh
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> Kyrill
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>> Prathamesh
> >>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>> Prathamesh
> >>>>>>>> That being said, I suggest you look at other similar patterns in
> >>>>>>>> vec-common.md, most of which are gated on
> >>>>>>>> ARM_HAVE_<MODE>_ARITH
> >>>>>>>> and possibly beware of issues with iwmmxt :-)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Christophe
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>> Prathamesh