[PATCH gcc 1/1] target: Fix asm generation for AVX builtins when using -masm=intel [PR106095]

[PATCH gcc 1/1] target: Fix asm generation for AVX builtins when using -masm=intel [PR106095]

[~antoyo]

From: Antoni Boucher <bouanto@zoho.com>

gcc/ChangeLog:
	PR target/106095
	* config/i386/sse.md: Fix asm generation.

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
	PR target/106095
	* gcc.target/i386/pr106095.c: Add test using those AVX builtins.
---
 gcc/config/i386/sse.md                   | 10 ++---
 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr106095.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr106095.c

diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/sse.md b/gcc/config/i386/sse.md
index 8cd0f617bf3..f2f72e8fb05 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/sse.md
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/sse.md
@@ -8859,7 +8859,7 @@
   "@
    cvtsd2ss\t{%2, %0|%0, %2}
    cvtsd2ss\t{%2, %0|%0, %q2}
-   vcvtsd2ss\t{<round_mask_op3>%2, %1, %0<mask_operand3>|<mask_operand3>%0, %1, %q2<round_mask_op3>}"
+   vcvtsd2ss\t{<round_mask_op3>%2, %1, %0<mask_operand3>|%0<mask_operand3>, %1, %q2<round_mask_op3>}"
   [(set_attr "isa" "noavx,noavx,avx")
    (set_attr "type" "ssecvt")
    (set_attr "athlon_decode" "vector,double,*")
@@ -8903,7 +8903,7 @@
   "@
    cvtss2sd\t{%2, %0|%0, %2}
    cvtss2sd\t{%2, %0|%0, %k2}
-   vcvtss2sd\t{<round_saeonly_mask_op3>%2, %1, %0<mask_operand3>|<mask_operand3>%0, %1, %k2<round_saeonly_mask_op3>}"
+   vcvtss2sd\t{<round_saeonly_mask_op3>%2, %1, %0<mask_operand3>|%0<mask_operand3>, %1, %k2<round_saeonly_mask_op3>}"
   [(set_attr "isa" "noavx,noavx,avx")
    (set_attr "type" "ssecvt")
    (set_attr "amdfam10_decode" "vector,double,*")
@@ -14406,8 +14406,8 @@
   "TARGET_AVX512VL"
 {
   if (GET_MODE_SIZE (GET_MODE_INNER (<MODE>mode)) == 4)
-    return "vpmov<trunsuffix><pmov_suff_4>\t{%1, %0%{%2%}|%0%{%2%}, %t1}";
-  return "vpmov<trunsuffix><pmov_suff_4>\t{%1, %0%{%2%}|%0%{%2%}, %g1}";
+    return "vpmov<trunsuffix><pmov_suff_4>\t{%1, %0%{%2%}|%0%{%2%}, %1}";
+  return "vpmov<trunsuffix><pmov_suff_4>\t{%1, %0%{%2%}|%0%{%2%}, %1}";
 }
   [(set_attr "type" "ssemov")
    (set_attr "memory" "store")
@@ -14506,7 +14506,7 @@
 	  (match_dup 0)
 	  (match_operand:QI 2 "register_operand" "Yk")))]
   "TARGET_AVX512VL"
-  "vpmov<trunsuffix>qw\t{%1, %0%{%2%}|%0%{%2%}, %g1}"
+  "vpmov<trunsuffix>qw\t{%1, %0%{%2%}|%0%{%2%}, %1}"
   [(set_attr "type" "ssemov")
    (set_attr "memory" "store")
    (set_attr "prefix" "evex")
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr106095.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr106095.c
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..dfa6136500f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr106095.c
@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+/* PR gcc/106095 */
+/* { dg-do assemble } */
+/* { dg-options "-mavx512vl -masm=intel" } */
+/* { dg-require-effective-target masm_intel } */
+
+#include <immintrin.h>
+#include <stdlib.h>
+
+typedef int v4si __attribute__ ((vector_size (16)));
+typedef long long v2di __attribute__ ((vector_size (16)));
+typedef long long v4di __attribute__ ((vector_size (32)));
+typedef double v2df __attribute__ ((vector_size (16)));
+typedef float v4sf __attribute__ ((vector_size (16)));
+
+void bug1(void) {
+    v4si ints4 = {0, 1, 2, 3};
+    unsigned long long *addr = malloc(sizeof(*addr));
+    __builtin_ia32_pmovdw128mem_mask(addr, ints4, 0);
+}
+
+int bug2(void) {
+    v2df a = {0.0, 0.0};
+    v4sf b = {0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0};
+    v2df src = {0.0, 0.0};
+    v2df res = __builtin_ia32_cvtss2sd_mask_round(a, b, src, 0, _MM_FROUND_NO_EXC);
+    return (int)res[0];
+}
+
+int bug3(void) {
+    v4sf a = {0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0};
+    v2df b = {0.0, 0.0};
+    v4sf src = {0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0};
+    v4sf res = __builtin_ia32_cvtsd2ss_mask_round(a, b, src, 0, _MM_FROUND_NO_EXC);
+    return (int)res[0];
+}
+
+int bug4(void) {
+    v4di ints4 = {0, 1, 2, 3};
+    unsigned long long *addr = malloc(sizeof(*addr));
+    __builtin_ia32_pmovqw256mem_mask(addr, ints4, 0);
+}
+
+int bug5(void) {
+    v2di ints4 = {0, 1};
+    unsigned int *addr = malloc(sizeof(*addr));
+    __builtin_ia32_pmovqw128mem_mask(addr, ints4, 0);
+}
-- 
2.34.2

[PATCH gcc 0/1] [PATCH] target: Fix asm generation for AVX builtins when using -masm=intel [PR106095]

[~antoyo]

Hi.

This fixes the following bug:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106095

It's the first time I work outside of the jit component, so please tell
me if I forgot anything.

Here are the results of running the test:

		=== gcc Summary ===

# of expected passes		182481
# of unexpected failures	91
# of unexpected successes	20
# of expected failures		1475
# of unsupported tests		2535

		=== g++ Summary ===

# of expected passes		231596
# of unexpected failures	1
# of expected failures		2083
# of unsupported tests		9948

		=== jit Summary ===

# of expected passes		14542
# of unexpected failures	1

		=== libstdc++ Summary ===

# of expected passes		15538
# of expected failures		95
# of unsupported tests		653

		=== libgomp Summary ===

# of expected passes		5012
# of expected failures		33
# of unsupported tests		323

		=== libitm Summary ===

# of expected passes		44
# of expected failures		3
# of unsupported tests		1

		=== libatomic Summary ===

# of expected passes		54

It's the first time I run the whole testsuite, so I'm not sure if those
failures are normal. I got more unexpected failures for the gcc tests
than what is shown in https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-
testresults/2022-June/764154.html. In any case, I get the same failures
when running the testsuite on master. Perhaps my configure command is
wrong? I used the following:

../../gcc/configure --enable-host-shared --enable-
languages=c,jit,c++,lto --enable-checking=release
--prefix=(pwd)/../install

Thanks for the review.

Antoni Boucher (1):
  target: Fix asm generation for AVX builtins when using -masm=intel
    [PR106095]

 gcc/config/i386/sse.md                   | 10 ++---
 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr106095.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr106095.c

-- 
2.34.2

Re: [PATCH gcc 0/1] [PATCH] target: Fix asm generation for AVX builtins when using -masm=intel [PR106095]

[Hongtao Liu]

On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 9:26 AM ~antoyo via Gcc-patches
<gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> Hi.
>
> This fixes the following bug:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106095
The patch LGTM, thanks for handling this.
>
> It's the first time I work outside of the jit component, so please tell
> me if I forgot anything.
>
> Here are the results of running the test:
>
>                 === gcc Summary ===
>
> # of expected passes            182481
> # of unexpected failures        91
> # of unexpected successes       20
> # of expected failures          1475
> # of unsupported tests          2535
>
>                 === g++ Summary ===
>
> # of expected passes            231596
> # of unexpected failures        1
> # of expected failures          2083
> # of unsupported tests          9948
>
>                 === jit Summary ===
>
> # of expected passes            14542
> # of unexpected failures        1
>
>                 === libstdc++ Summary ===
>
> # of expected passes            15538
> # of expected failures          95
> # of unsupported tests          653
>
>                 === libgomp Summary ===
>
> # of expected passes            5012
> # of expected failures          33
> # of unsupported tests          323
>
>                 === libitm Summary ===
>
> # of expected passes            44
> # of expected failures          3
> # of unsupported tests          1
>
>                 === libatomic Summary ===
>
> # of expected passes            54
>
> It's the first time I run the whole testsuite, so I'm not sure if those
> failures are normal. I got more unexpected failures for the gcc tests
> than what is shown in https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-
> testresults/2022-June/764154.html. In any case, I get the same failures
> when running the testsuite on master. Perhaps my configure command is
> wrong? I used the following:
You can use ./contrib/compare_tests to see if there's no failure or new pass.
./contrib/compara_tests is under gcc top directory.
>
> ../../gcc/configure --enable-host-shared --enable-
> languages=c,jit,c++,lto --enable-checking=release
> --prefix=(pwd)/../install
>
--enable-checking=release will give up some internal checks to
increase the compilation speed, for the development trunk, it is
better not to use release.
> Thanks for the review.
>
> Antoni Boucher (1):
>   target: Fix asm generation for AVX builtins when using -masm=intel
>     [PR106095]
>
>  gcc/config/i386/sse.md                   | 10 ++---
>  gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr106095.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr106095.c
>
> --
> 2.34.2



-- 
BR,
Hongtao

Re: [PATCH gcc 0/1] [PATCH] target: Fix asm generation for AVX builtins when using -masm=intel [PR106095]

[Antoni Boucher]

Thanks for the review.
Does this mean I can commit it, assuming the output of compare_tests is
good?

By the way, I wanted to mention that it was my first time playing with
the assembly generation, so I was not sure about my changes (even
though it makes the test case compile, I'm not sure it doesn't have any
unintended side effects):
It looked to me that the register qualifiers should be the same for
both AT&T and Intel syntaxes, but I'm might be wrong about this.

On Tue, 2022-06-28 at 14:22 +0800, Hongtao Liu wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 9:26 AM ~antoyo via Gcc-patches
> <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi.
> > 
> > This fixes the following bug:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106095
> The patch LGTM, thanks for handling this.
> > 
> > It's the first time I work outside of the jit component, so please
> > tell
> > me if I forgot anything.
> > 
> > Here are the results of running the test:
> > 
> >                 === gcc Summary ===
> > 
> > # of expected passes            182481
> > # of unexpected failures        91
> > # of unexpected successes       20
> > # of expected failures          1475
> > # of unsupported tests          2535
> > 
> >                 === g++ Summary ===
> > 
> > # of expected passes            231596
> > # of unexpected failures        1
> > # of expected failures          2083
> > # of unsupported tests          9948
> > 
> >                 === jit Summary ===
> > 
> > # of expected passes            14542
> > # of unexpected failures        1
> > 
> >                 === libstdc++ Summary ===
> > 
> > # of expected passes            15538
> > # of expected failures          95
> > # of unsupported tests          653
> > 
> >                 === libgomp Summary ===
> > 
> > # of expected passes            5012
> > # of expected failures          33
> > # of unsupported tests          323
> > 
> >                 === libitm Summary ===
> > 
> > # of expected passes            44
> > # of expected failures          3
> > # of unsupported tests          1
> > 
> >                 === libatomic Summary ===
> > 
> > # of expected passes            54
> > 
> > It's the first time I run the whole testsuite, so I'm not sure if
> > those
> > failures are normal. I got more unexpected failures for the gcc
> > tests
> > than what is shown in https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-
> > testresults/2022-June/764154.html. In any case, I get the same
> > failures
> > when running the testsuite on master. Perhaps my configure command
> > is
> > wrong? I used the following:
> You can use ./contrib/compare_tests to see if there's no failure or
> new pass.
> ./contrib/compara_tests is under gcc top directory.
> > 
> > ../../gcc/configure --enable-host-shared --enable-
> > languages=c,jit,c++,lto --enable-checking=release
> > --prefix=(pwd)/../install
> > 
> --enable-checking=release will give up some internal checks to
> increase the compilation speed, for the development trunk, it is
> better not to use release.
> > Thanks for the review.
> > 
> > Antoni Boucher (1):
> >   target: Fix asm generation for AVX builtins when using -
> > masm=intel
> >     [PR106095]
> > 
> >  gcc/config/i386/sse.md                   | 10 ++---
> >  gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr106095.c | 47
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >  create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr106095.c
> > 
> > --
> > 2.34.2
> 
> 
> 

Re: [PATCH gcc 0/1] [PATCH] target: Fix asm generation for AVX builtins when using -masm=intel [PR106095]

[Hongtao Liu]

On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 11:16 PM Antoni Boucher <bouanto@zoho.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the review.
> Does this mean I can commit it, assuming the output of compare_tests is
> good?
Yes.
>
> By the way, I wanted to mention that it was my first time playing with
> the assembly generation, so I was not sure about my changes (even
> though it makes the test case compile, I'm not sure it doesn't have any
> unintended side effects):
> It looked to me that the register qualifiers should be the same for
> both AT&T and Intel syntaxes, but I'm might be wrong about this.
Yes for the case in your patch, I think it's a typo.
But there could be some difference for operand modifiers between AT&T
and Intel syntaxes in some patterns.
.i.e the use of mode attr <iptr>.

>
> On Tue, 2022-06-28 at 14:22 +0800, Hongtao Liu wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 9:26 AM ~antoyo via Gcc-patches
> > <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > This fixes the following bug:
> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106095
> > The patch LGTM, thanks for handling this.
> > >
> > > It's the first time I work outside of the jit component, so please
> > > tell
> > > me if I forgot anything.
> > >
> > > Here are the results of running the test:
> > >
> > >                 === gcc Summary ===
> > >
> > > # of expected passes            182481
> > > # of unexpected failures        91
> > > # of unexpected successes       20
> > > # of expected failures          1475
> > > # of unsupported tests          2535
> > >
> > >                 === g++ Summary ===
> > >
> > > # of expected passes            231596
> > > # of unexpected failures        1
> > > # of expected failures          2083
> > > # of unsupported tests          9948
> > >
> > >                 === jit Summary ===
> > >
> > > # of expected passes            14542
> > > # of unexpected failures        1
> > >
> > >                 === libstdc++ Summary ===
> > >
> > > # of expected passes            15538
> > > # of expected failures          95
> > > # of unsupported tests          653
> > >
> > >                 === libgomp Summary ===
> > >
> > > # of expected passes            5012
> > > # of expected failures          33
> > > # of unsupported tests          323
> > >
> > >                 === libitm Summary ===
> > >
> > > # of expected passes            44
> > > # of expected failures          3
> > > # of unsupported tests          1
> > >
> > >                 === libatomic Summary ===
> > >
> > > # of expected passes            54
> > >
> > > It's the first time I run the whole testsuite, so I'm not sure if
> > > those
> > > failures are normal. I got more unexpected failures for the gcc
> > > tests
> > > than what is shown in https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-
> > > testresults/2022-June/764154.html. In any case, I get the same
> > > failures
> > > when running the testsuite on master. Perhaps my configure command
> > > is
> > > wrong? I used the following:
> > You can use ./contrib/compare_tests to see if there's no failure or
> > new pass.
> > ./contrib/compara_tests is under gcc top directory.
> > >
> > > ../../gcc/configure --enable-host-shared --enable-
> > > languages=c,jit,c++,lto --enable-checking=release
> > > --prefix=(pwd)/../install
> > >
> > --enable-checking=release will give up some internal checks to
> > increase the compilation speed, for the development trunk, it is
> > better not to use release.
> > > Thanks for the review.
> > >
> > > Antoni Boucher (1):
> > >   target: Fix asm generation for AVX builtins when using -
> > > masm=intel
> > >     [PR106095]
> > >
> > >  gcc/config/i386/sse.md                   | 10 ++---
> > >  gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr106095.c | 47
> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  2 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > >  create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr106095.c
> > >
> > > --
> > > 2.34.2
> >
> >
> >
>


--
BR,
Hongtao