public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Kewen.Lin" <linkw@linux.ibm.com>
To: Carl Love <cel@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org,
	"bergner@linux.ibm.com" <bergner@linux.ibm.com>,
	Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/13] rs6000, remove __builtin_vsx_xvcmpeqsp built-in
Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 18:43:45 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <beb37dc7-bedf-9ec2-ab98-b6a52e64a7e8@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <580ef386-5aaf-4328-b76f-08c4f310dcb6@linux.ibm.com>

Hi,

on 2024/5/24 02:21, Carl Love wrote:
> 
> 
> On 5/13/24 22:37, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> on 2024/4/20 05:18, Carl Love wrote:
>>> rs6000, remove __builtin_vsx_xvcmpeqsp built-in
>>>
>>> The built-in __builtin_vsx_xvcmpeqsp is a duplicate of the overloaded
>>> vec_cmpeq built-in.  The built-in is undocumented.  The built-in and
>>> the test cases are removed.
>>>
>>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>> 	* config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def (__builtin_vsx_xvcmpeqsp):
>>> 	Remove built-in definition.
>>>
>>
>> Ah, you separated this __builtin_vsx_xvcmpeqsp from the one for
>> __builtin_vsx_xvcmpeqsp_p, it's fine, please ignore the comments for
>> considering this __builtin_vsx_xvcmpeqsp in my previous reply to 11/13.
>>
>>
>>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>>> 	* vsx-builtin-3.c (do_cmp): Remove test case for
>>> 	__builtin_vsx_xvcmpeqsp.
>>> ---
>>>  gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def            | 3 ---
>>>  gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/vsx-builtin-3.c | 2 --
>>>  2 files changed, 5 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def
>>> index 2f6149edd5f..19d05b8043a 100644
>>> --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def
>>> +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-builtins.def
>>> @@ -1613,9 +1613,6 @@
>>>    const signed int __builtin_vsx_xvcmpeqdp_p (signed int, vd, vd);
>>>      XVCMPEQDP_P vector_eq_v2df_p {pred}
>>>  
>>> -  const vf __builtin_vsx_xvcmpeqsp (vf, vf);
>>> -    XVCMPEQSP vector_eqv4sf {}
>>> -
>>>    const vd __builtin_vsx_xvcmpgedp (vd, vd);
>>>      XVCMPGEDP vector_gev2df {}
>>>  
>>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/vsx-builtin-3.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/vsx-builtin-3.c
>>> index 35ea31b2616..245893dc0e3 100644
>>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/vsx-builtin-3.c
>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/vsx-builtin-3.c
>>> @@ -27,7 +27,6 @@
>>>  /* { dg-final { scan-assembler "xvcmpeqdp" } } */
>>>  /* { dg-final { scan-assembler "xvcmpgtdp" } } */
>>>  /* { dg-final { scan-assembler "xvcmpgedp" } } */
>>> -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "xvcmpeqsp" } } */
>>>  /* { dg-final { scan-assembler "xvcmpgtsp" } } */
>>>  /* { dg-final { scan-assembler "xvcmpgesp" } } */
>>>  /* { dg-final { scan-assembler "xxsldwi" } } */
>>> @@ -112,7 +111,6 @@ int do_cmp (void)
>>>    d[i][0] = __builtin_vsx_xvcmpgtdp (d[i][1], d[i][2]); i++;
>>>    d[i][0] = __builtin_vsx_xvcmpgedp (d[i][1], d[i][2]); i++;
>>>  
>>> -  f[i][0] = __builtin_vsx_xvcmpeqsp (f[i][1], f[i][2]); i++;
>>>    f[i][0] = __builtin_vsx_xvcmpgtsp (f[i][1], f[i][2]); i++;
>>>    f[i][0] = __builtin_vsx_xvcmpgesp (f[i][1], f[i][2]); i++;
>>>    return i;
>>
>> As the other in this patch series, I prefer to change it with
>> vec_cmpeq here, OK for trunk with this tweaked (also keep the
>> scan there), thanks!
> 
> When I went to change the test case I noticed that __builtin_vsx_xvcmpeqsp and vec_cmpeq both return a vector where the element is all ones if the comparison is True and zeros if False.  However, the return type for __builtin_vsx_xvcmpeqsp is vector floats but vec_cmpeq returns vector bool.
> 

Ah, so they are not equivalent from prototype perspective.

> The PVIPR says the vec_cmpeq built-in returns a value where each bit in the vector element is a 1 if the comparison is equal and 0 otherwise.  However, the documented result is a vector bool int for the floating point comparison.  The return value for __builtin_vsx_xvcmpeqsp was vector float.

IMHO PVIPR prototype (returning vector bool) makes more sense,
it does match better with what the result holds.

> 
> So, the "bit values" returned are the same but not of the same type. So technically vec_cmpeq is not a drop in replacement for __builtin_vsx_xvcmpeqsp.  Given that, perhaps we should not be removing __builtin_vsx_xvcmpeqsp?
> 
> The testcase has to be changed from:
>      f[i][0] = __builtin_vsx_xvcmpeqsp (f[i][1], f[i][2]); i++;
>      bi[i][0] = vec_cmpeq (f[i][1], f[i][2]); i++;

For the test case change, I'd expect that it can work with:

-  f[i][0] = __builtin_vsx_xvcmpeqsp (f[i][1], f[i][2]); i++;
+  f[i][0] = (vector float) vec_cmpeq (f[i][1], f[i][2]); i++;

> 
> I am thinking we should drop this patch from the series, i.e. don't remove __builtin_vsx_xvcmpeqsp.  Thoughts?
> 

Since __builtin_vsx_xvcmpeqsp is an undocumented built-in, I don't
expect users to use it, even there is someone, IMHO vector bool is
a better fit.  In case someone actually wants the vector non-bool
type, he/she can just add an explicit conversion.  So I'm inclined
to remove the vsx_xvcmpeqsp, users should try to use PVIPR built-ins
as possible as they can.  But I'm also fine for holding on this, as
there are some other related built-ins cmp* (cmpge,cmpgt...), we
can re-visit and handle them together later.

BR,
Kewen

  reply	other threads:[~2024-05-24 10:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-04-19 21:04 [PATCH 0/13] rs6000, built-in cleanup patch series Carl Love
2024-04-19 21:16 ` [PATCH 1/13] rs6000, Remove __builtin_vsx_cmple* builtins Carl Love
2024-05-13  6:28   ` Kewen.Lin
2024-04-19 21:17 ` [PATCH 2/13] rs6000, Remove __builtin_vsx_xvcvspsxws built-in Carl Love
2024-05-14  8:43   ` Kewen.Lin
2024-05-24 20:18     ` Carl Love
2024-05-27  1:43       ` Kewen.Lin
2024-04-19 21:17 ` [PATCH 3/13] rs6000, fix error in unsigned vector float to unsigned int built-in definitions Carl Love
2024-05-14  7:00   ` Kewen.Lin
2024-05-24 20:19     ` Carl Love
2024-04-19 21:17 ` [PATCH 4/13] rs6000, extend the current vec_{un,}signed{e,o} built-ins Carl Love
2024-05-14  7:53   ` Kewen.Lin
2024-05-17 20:20     ` Carl Love
2024-05-20  1:10       ` Kewen.Lin
2024-05-24 20:19     ` Carl Love
2024-04-19 21:17 ` [PATCH 5/13] rs6000, remove duplicated built-ins of vecmergl and vec_mergeh Carl Love
2024-05-14  2:06   ` Kewen.Lin
2024-04-19 21:17 ` [PATCH 6/13] rs6000, add overloaded vec_sel with int128 arguments Carl Love
2024-05-14  2:54   ` Kewen.Lin
2024-05-22  0:13     ` Carl Love
2024-05-22  3:05       ` Kewen.Lin
2024-05-24 20:19         ` Carl Love
2024-04-19 21:18 ` [PATCH 7/13] rs6000, remove the vec_xxsel built-ins, they are duplicates Carl Love
2024-05-14  2:55   ` Kewen.Lin
2024-05-24 20:19     ` Carl Love
2024-04-19 21:18 ` [PATCH 8/13] rs6000, remove __builtin_vsx_vperm_* built-ins Carl Love
2024-05-14  2:59   ` Kewen.Lin
2024-05-24 20:20     ` Carl Love
2024-04-19 21:18 ` [PATCH 9/13] rs6000, remove __builtin_vsx_xvnegdp and __builtin_vsx_xvnegsp built-ins Carl Love
2024-05-14  3:01   ` Kewen.Lin
2024-04-19 21:18 ` [PATCH 10/13] rs6000, extend vec_xxpermdi built-in for __int128 args Carl Love
2024-05-14  5:14   ` Kewen.Lin
2024-05-24 20:20     ` Carl Love
2024-04-19 21:18 ` [PATCH 11/13] rs6000, remove __builtin_vsx_xvcmpeqsp_p built-in Carl Love
2024-05-14  5:26   ` Kewen.Lin
2024-05-24 20:20     ` Carl Love
2024-04-19 21:18 ` [PATCH 12/13] rs6000, remove __builtin_vsx_xvcmpeqsp built-in Carl Love
2024-05-14  5:37   ` Kewen.Lin
2024-05-23 18:21     ` Carl Love
2024-05-24 10:43       ` Kewen.Lin [this message]
2024-05-24 15:19         ` Carl Love
2024-04-19 21:18 ` [PATCH 13/13] rs6000, remove vector set and vector init built-ins Carl Love
2024-05-14  5:44   ` Kewen.Lin
2024-05-23  0:29     ` Carl Love
2024-05-23  2:27       ` Kewen.Lin
2024-05-10 15:15 ` [PING} Re: [PATCH 0/13] rs6000, built-in cleanup patch series Carl Love

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=beb37dc7-bedf-9ec2-ab98-b6a52e64a7e8@linux.ibm.com \
    --to=linkw@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=bergner@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=cel@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=segher@kernel.crashing.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).