On Thu, 21 Jul 2022 at 12:21, Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 5:36 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> <prathamesh.kulkarni@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 at 11:57, Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 3:49 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > > <prathamesh.kulkarni@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 14 Jul 2022 at 17:22, Richard Sandiford
> > > > <richard.sandiford@arm.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com> writes:
> > > > > > On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 9:55 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > > > > > <prathamesh.kulkarni@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 at 12:22, Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 9:12 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches
> > > > > >> > <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Hi Richard,
> > > > > >> > > For the following test:
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > svint32_t f2(int a, int b, int c, int d)
> > > > > >> > > {
> > > > > >> > >   int32x4_t v = (int32x4_t) {a, b, c, d};
> > > > > >> > >   return svld1rq_s32 (svptrue_b8 (), &v[0]);
> > > > > >> > > }
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > The compiler emits following ICE with -O3 -mcpu=generic+sve:
> > > > > >> > > foo.c: In function ‘f2’:
> > > > > >> > > foo.c:4:11: error: non-trivial conversion in ‘view_convert_expr’
> > > > > >> > >     4 | svint32_t f2(int a, int b, int c, int d)
> > > > > >> > >       |           ^~
> > > > > >> > > svint32_t
> > > > > >> > > __Int32x4_t
> > > > > >> > > _7 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<__Int32x4_t>(_8);
> > > > > >> > > during GIMPLE pass: forwprop
> > > > > >> > > dump file: foo.c.109t.forwprop2
> > > > > >> > > foo.c:4:11: internal compiler error: verify_gimple failed
> > > > > >> > > 0xfda04a verify_gimple_in_cfg(function*, bool)
> > > > > >> > >         ../../gcc/gcc/tree-cfg.cc:5568
> > > > > >> > > 0xe9371f execute_function_todo
> > > > > >> > >         ../../gcc/gcc/passes.cc:2091
> > > > > >> > > 0xe93ccb execute_todo
> > > > > >> > >         ../../gcc/gcc/passes.cc:2145
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > This happens because, after folding svld1rq_s32 to vec_perm_expr, we have:
> > > > > >> > >   int32x4_t v;
> > > > > >> > >   __Int32x4_t _1;
> > > > > >> > >   svint32_t _9;
> > > > > >> > >   vector(4) int _11;
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >   <bb 2> :
> > > > > >> > >   _1 = {a_3(D), b_4(D), c_5(D), d_6(D)};
> > > > > >> > >   v_12 = _1;
> > > > > >> > >   _11 = v_12;
> > > > > >> > >   _9 = VEC_PERM_EXPR <_11, _11, { 0, 1, 2, 3, ... }>;
> > > > > >> > >   return _9;
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > During forwprop, simplify_permutation simplifies vec_perm_expr to
> > > > > >> > > view_convert_expr,
> > > > > >> > > and the end result becomes:
> > > > > >> > >   svint32_t _7;
> > > > > >> > >   __Int32x4_t _8;
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > ;;   basic block 2, loop depth 0
> > > > > >> > > ;;    pred:       ENTRY
> > > > > >> > >   _8 = {a_2(D), b_3(D), c_4(D), d_5(D)};
> > > > > >> > >   _7 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<__Int32x4_t>(_8);
> > > > > >> > >   return _7;
> > > > > >> > > ;;    succ:       EXIT
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > which causes the error duing verify_gimple since VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR
> > > > > >> > > has incompatible types (svint32_t, int32x4_t).
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > The attached patch disables simplification of VEC_PERM_EXPR
> > > > > >> > > in simplify_permutation, if lhs and rhs have non compatible types,
> > > > > >> > > which resolves ICE, but am not sure if it's the correct approach ?
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > It for sure papers over the issue.  I think the error happens earlier,
> > > > > >> > the V_C_E should have been built with the type of the VEC_PERM_EXPR
> > > > > >> > which is the type of the LHS.  But then you probably run into the
> > > > > >> > different sizes ICE (VLA vs constant size).  I think for this case you
> > > > > >> > want a BIT_FIELD_REF instead of a VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR,
> > > > > >> > selecting the "low" part of the VLA vector.
> > > > > >> Hi Richard,
> > > > > >> Sorry I don't quite follow. In this case, we use VEC_PERM_EXPR to
> > > > > >> represent dup operation
> > > > > >> from fixed width to VLA vector. I am not sure how folding it to
> > > > > >> BIT_FIELD_REF will work.
> > > > > >> Could you please elaborate ?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Also, the issue doesn't seem restricted to this case.
> > > > > >> The following test case also ICE's during forwprop:
> > > > > >> svint32_t foo()
> > > > > >> {
> > > > > >>   int32x4_t v = (int32x4_t) {1, 2, 3, 4};
> > > > > >>   svint32_t v2 = svld1rq_s32 (svptrue_b8 (), &v[0]);
> > > > > >>   return v2;
> > > > > >> }
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> foo2.c: In function ‘foo’:
> > > > > >> foo2.c:9:1: error: non-trivial conversion in ‘vector_cst’
> > > > > >>     9 | }
> > > > > >>       | ^
> > > > > >> svint32_t
> > > > > >> int32x4_t
> > > > > >> v2_4 = { 1, 2, 3, 4 };
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> because simplify_permutation folds
> > > > > >> VEC_PERM_EXPR< {1, 2, 3, 4}, {1, 2, 3, 4}, {0, 1, 2, 3, ...} >
> > > > > >> into:
> > > > > >> vector_cst {1, 2, 3, 4}
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> and it complains during verify_gimple_assign_single because we don't
> > > > > >> support assignment of vector_cst to VLA vector.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I guess the issue really is that currently, only VEC_PERM_EXPR
> > > > > >> supports lhs and rhs
> > > > > >> to have vector types with differing lengths, and simplifying it to
> > > > > >> other tree codes, like above,
> > > > > >> will result in type errors ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That might be the case - Richard should know.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't see anything particularly special about VEC_PERM_EXPR here,
> > > > > or about the VLA vs. VLS thing.  We would have the same issue trying
> > > > > to build a 128-bit vector from 2 64-bit vectors.  And there are other
> > > > > tree codes whose input types are/can be different from their output
> > > > > types.
> > > > >
> > > > > So it just seems like a normal type correctness issue: a VEC_PERM_EXPR
> > > > > of type T needs to be replaced by something of type T.  Whether T has a
> > > > > constant size or a variable size doesn't matter.
> > > > >
> > > > > > If so your type check
> > > > > > is still too late, you should instead recognize that we are permuting
> > > > > > a VLA vector and then refuse to go any of the non-VEC_PERM generating
> > > > > > paths - that probably means just allowing the code == VEC_PERM_EXPR
> > > > > > case and not any of the CTOR/CST/VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR cases?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah.  If we're talking about the match.pd code, I think only:
> > > > >
> > > > >   (if (sel.series_p (0, 1, 0, 1))
> > > > >    { op0; }
> > > > >    (if (sel.series_p (0, 1, nelts, 1))
> > > > >     { op1; }
> > > > >
> > > > > need a type compatibility check.  For fold_vec_perm I think
> > > > > we should just rearrange:
> > > > >
> > > > >   gcc_assert (known_eq (TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS (type), nelts)
> > > > >               && known_eq (TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS (TREE_TYPE (arg0)), nelts)
> > > > >               && known_eq (TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS (TREE_TYPE (arg1)), nelts));
> > > > >   if (TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (arg0)) != TREE_TYPE (type)
> > > > >       || TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (arg1)) != TREE_TYPE (type))
> > > > >     return NULL_TREE;
> > > > >
> > > > > so that the assert comes after the early-out.
> > > > >
> > > > > It would be good at some point to relax fold_vec_perm to cases where the
> > > > > outputs are a different length from the inputs, since the all-constant
> > > > > VEC_PERM_EXPR above could be folded to a VECTOR_CST.
> > > > Hi,
> > > > For the above case, I think the issue is that simplify_permutation
> > > > uses TREE_TYPE (arg0) for res_type,
> > > > while it should now use type for lhs.
> > > >
> > > >       /* Shuffle of a constructor.  */
> > > >       bool ret = false;
> > > >       tree res_type = TREE_TYPE (arg0);
> > > >       tree opt = fold_ternary (VEC_PERM_EXPR, res_type, arg0, arg1, op2);
> > > >
> > > > Using, res_type = TREE_TYPE (gimple_get_lhs (stmt)),
> > > > resolves the ICE, and emits all constant VEC_PERM_EXPR:
> > > >
> > > >   v2_4 = VEC_PERM_EXPR <{ 1, 2, 3, 4 }, { 1, 2, 3, 4 }, { 0, 1, 2, 3, ... }>;
> > > >   return v2_4;
> > > >
> > > > Does the patch look OK to commit after bootstrap+test ?
> > >
> > > Ok with using gimple_assign_lhs (stmt) instead of gimple_get_lhs (stmt).
> > Hi,
> > I committed the patch but unfortunately it caused PR106360.
> > The issue is that for slp-reduc-sad-2.c on ppc64le,
> > simplify_permutation sees the following during forwprop4:
> >
> >   _78 = (void *) ivtmp.21_73;
> >   _92 = MEM <unsigned long> [(uint8_t *)_78];
> >   _91 = {_92, 0};
> >   vect__1.6_90 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<vector(16) unsigned char>(_91);
> >   _88 = MEM <unsigned long> [(uint8_t *)_78 + 16B];
> >   _87 = {_88, 0};
> >   vect__1.7_86 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<vector(16) unsigned char>(_87);
> >   vect__1.8_85 = VEC_PERM_EXPR <vect__1.6_90, vect__1.7_86, { 0, 1, 2,
> > 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 }>;
> >
> > So for,
> > tree res_type = TREE_TYPE (gimple_assign_lhs (stmt));
> > tree opt = fold_ternary (VEC_PERM_EXPR, res_type, arg0, arg1, op2);
> >
> > we have:
> > res_type = V16QI
> > arg0 = {_92, 0}
> > arg1 = {_88, 0}
> > op2 = {0, 2}
> >
> > and thus we hit the following assert in fold_vec_perm:
> >
> > gcc_assert (known_eq (TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS (type), nelts)
> >               && known_eq (TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS (TREE_TYPE (arg0)), nelts)
> >               && known_eq (TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS (TREE_TYPE (arg1)), nelts));
> >
> > since nelts == 2, and TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS (type) == 16.
> >
> > If we revert the committed patch so we pass res_type = TREE_TYPE (arg0) instead,
> > it simplifies the above VEC_PERM_EXPR to VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR:
> >   _92 = MEM <unsigned long> [(uint8_t *)_78];
> >   _88 = MEM <unsigned long> [(uint8_t *)_78 + 16B];
> >   _5 = {_92, _88};
> >   vect__1.8_85 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<vector(16) unsigned char>(_5);
> >
> > I suppose it's legal to cast vector of one type to another as long as
> > sizes match ?
> >
> > IIUC, the above VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR will result in:
> > vect__1.8_85 = { (uint8_t) _92, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, (uint8_t) _88, 0,
> > 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 } ?
> >
> > In the attached patch, it restores res_type to TREE_TYPE (arg0), and checks
> > if lhs_type and res_type differ but have same size, and in that case emit:
> > lhs = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<lhs_type> (opt),
> > instead of:
> > lhs = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<op1 type> (opt)
> > where opt is result of folding VEC_PERM_EXPR<res_type, arg0, arg1, op2>
> >
> > Does it look OK ?
>
> Definitely the original change was bogus.
>
> +         if (!operand_equal_p (TYPE_SIZE (lhs_type), TYPE_SIZE (res_type)))
> +           return 0;
>
> just repeats your very original change though ... I'll note that
> fold_ternary will
> ICE on now valid VEC_PERM_EXPRs so we should fix it, possibly by
> returning NULL_TREE on cases it does not handle.
>
> I think what should be done is, in the
>
>       /* If there are any VIEW_CONVERT_EXPRs found when finding permutation
>          operands source, check whether it's valid to transform and prepare
>          the required new operands.  */
>       if (code == VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR || code2 == VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR)
>         {
> ...
>
> path also transform the expected result type.  It should remain V_C_E compatible
> to TREE_TYPE (lhs) but get a new element type.
>
> But as said,
>
> tree
> fold_vec_perm (tree type, tree arg0, tree arg1, const vec_perm_indices &sel)
> {
>   unsigned int i;
>   unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT nelts;
>   bool need_ctor = false;
>
>   if (!sel.length ().is_constant (&nelts))
>     return NULL_TREE;
>   gcc_assert (known_eq (TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS (type), nelts)
>               && known_eq (TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS (TREE_TYPE (arg0)), nelts)
>               && known_eq (TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS (TREE_TYPE (arg1)), nelts));
>
> ^^^ this doesn't match what we allow for VEC_PERM_EXPRs now and fold_ternary
> doesn't guard according to those asserts (I think we should extend fold_vec_perm
> to support the new constraints).
Hi Richard,
Thanks for the suggestions and sorry for late reply. I reverted the change to
simplify_permutaton which resolved the ppc64le case ICE.

The attached patch extends fold_vec_perm to handle vectors with
differing lengths.
For,
lhs = vec_perm_expr<arg0, arg1, mask>,
the patch:
(a) asserts lhs and mask have same vector length.
(b) asserts arg0 and arg1 have same vector length.
(c) returns NULL_TREE if element type differs for lhs, arg0 and arg1.
(d) if len(lhs) > len(arg0), then the patch allows permuting arg0, arg1
if the mask has npatterns == len(arg0) and nelts_per_pattern == 1.
The intent is to permute arg0 and arg1, and then to dup elements in result
to target vector length.
So for eg:
vec_perm_expr< {1, 2, 3, 4}, {5, 6, 7, 8}, {0, 4, 1, 5, ...}>
will result in vla vector {1, 5, 2, 6, ....} with {1, 5, 2, 6}
replicated thru-out.
Does it look OK ?

With the patch, we don't ICE for either of the aarch64 tests above.
For,
svint32_t f1()
{
  int32x4_t v = {1, 2, 3, 4};
  return svld1rq_s32 (svptrue_b8 (), &v[0]);
}

optimized dump shows:
svint32_t f1 ()
{
  int32x4_t v;

  <bb 2> :
  return { 1, 2, 3, 4, ... };

}

code-gen:
f1:
.LFB3900:
        .cfi_startproc
        ptrue   p0.b, all
        adrp    x0, .LC0
        add     x0, x0, :lo12:.LC0
        ld1rqw  z0.s, p0/z, [x0]
        ret
.LC0:
        .word   1
        .word   2
        .word   3
        .word   4

I guess for this particular case, we could use index instead.

For,
svint32_t f2(int a, int b, int c, int d)
{
  int32x4_t v = {a, b, c, d};
  return svld1rq_s32 (svptrue_b8 (), &v[0]);
}

optimized dump shows:
svint32_t f2 (int a, int b, int c, int d)
{
  svint32_t _6;

  <bb 2> [local count: 1073741824]:
  _6 = {a_1(D), b_2(D), c_3(D), d_4(D), ... };
  return _6;

The code-gen seems pretty bad however:
f2:
.LFB3901:
        .cfi_startproc
        addvl   sp, sp, #-4
        .cfi_escape 0xf,0x9,0x8f,0,0x92,0x2e,0,0x8,0x20,0x1e,0x22
        ptrue   p0.b, all
        addvl   x4, sp, #3
        mov     z0.b, #0
        st1w    z0.s, p0, [sp, #3, mul vl]
        str     w0, [x4]
        addvl   x0, sp, #2
        ld1w    z0.s, p0/z, [sp, #3, mul vl]
        st1w    z0.s, p0, [sp, #2, mul vl]
        str     w1, [x0, 4]
        addvl   x0, sp, #1
        ld1w    z0.s, p0/z, [sp, #2, mul vl]
        st1w    z0.s, p0, [sp, #1, mul vl]
        str     w2, [x0, 8]
        ld1w    z0.s, p0/z, [sp, #1, mul vl]
        st1w    z0.s, p0, [sp]
        str     w3, [sp, 12]
        ld1w    z0.s, p0/z, [sp]
        addvl   sp, sp, #4
        .cfi_def_cfa_offset 0
        ret

I will try to address code-gen issues in follow up patches.
Bootstrapped+tested on x64_64-linux-gnu and aarch64-linux-gnu.

Thanks,
Prathamesh

>
> Richard.
>
> > Thanks,
> > Prathamesh
> >
> > >
> > > > I will try to address the folding for above VEC_PERM_EXPR in follow-up patch.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Prathamesh
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Richard