From: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com>
To: Tamar Christina <Tamar.Christina@arm.com>
Cc: Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@foss.arm.com>,
"gcc-patches\@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
nd <nd@arm.com>, Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>,
Marcus Shawcroft <Marcus.Shawcroft@arm.com>,
Kyrylo Tkachov <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH]AArch64 div-by-255, ensure that arguments are registers. [PR107988]
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2022 13:50:29 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <mpta63q5c2i.fsf@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <VI1PR08MB532541D593A0984E3FF8AD41FFE09@VI1PR08MB5325.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> (Tamar Christina's message of "Wed, 14 Dec 2022 11:18:37 +0000")
Tamar Christina <Tamar.Christina@arm.com> writes:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com>
>> Sent: Friday, December 9, 2022 7:08 AM
>> To: Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@foss.arm.com>
>> Cc: Tamar Christina <Tamar.Christina@arm.com>; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org;
>> nd <nd@arm.com>; Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>;
>> Marcus Shawcroft <Marcus.Shawcroft@arm.com>; Kyrylo Tkachov
>> <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com>
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH]AArch64 div-by-255, ensure that arguments are
>> registers. [PR107988]
>>
>> Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@foss.arm.com> writes:
>> > On 08/12/2022 16:39, Tamar Christina via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> >> Hi All,
>> >>
>> >> At -O0 (as opposed to e.g. volatile) we can get into the situation
>> >> where the
>> >> in0 and result RTL arguments passed to the division function are
>> >> memory locations instead of registers. I think we could reject these
>> >> early on by checking that the gimple values are GIMPLE registers, but
>> >> I think it's better to handle it.
>> >>
>> >> As such I force them to registers and emit a move to the memory
>> >> locations and leave it up to reload to handle. This fixes the ICE
>> >> and still allows the optimization in these cases, which improves the code
>> quality a lot.
>> >>
>> >> Bootstrapped Regtested on aarch64-none-linux-gnu and no issues.
>> >>
>> >> Ok for master?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Tamar
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> gcc/ChangeLog:
>> >>
>> >> PR target/107988
>> >> * config/aarch64/aarch64.cc
>> >> (aarch64_vectorize_can_special_div_by_constant): Ensure input and
>> output
>> >> RTL are registers.
>> >>
>> >> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>> >>
>> >> PR target/107988
>> >> * gcc.target/aarch64/pr107988-1.c: New test.
>> >>
>> >> --- inline copy of patch --
>> >> diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.cc
>> >> b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.cc index
>> >>
>> b8dc3f070c8afc47c85fa18768c4da92c774338f..9f96424993c4fcccce90e1b241f
>> >> cb3aa97025225 100644
>> >> --- a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.cc
>> >> +++ b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.cc
>> >> @@ -24337,12 +24337,27 @@
>> aarch64_vectorize_can_special_div_by_constant (enum tree_code code,
>> >> if (!VECTOR_TYPE_P (vectype))
>> >> return false;
>> >>
>> >> + if (!REG_P (in0))
>> >> + in0 = force_reg (GET_MODE (in0), in0);
>> >> +
>> >> gcc_assert (output);
>> >>
>> >> - if (!*output)
>> >> - *output = gen_reg_rtx (TYPE_MODE (vectype));
>> >> + rtx res = NULL_RTX;
>> >> +
>> >> + /* Once e get to this point we cannot reject the RTL, if it's not a reg
>> then
>> >> + Create a new reg and write the result to the output afterwards.
>> >> + */ if (!*output || !REG_P (*output))
>> >> + res = gen_reg_rtx (TYPE_MODE (vectype)); else
>> >> + res = *output;
>> >
>> > Why not write
>> > rtx res = *output
>> > if (!res || !REG_P (res))
>> > res = gen_reg_rtx...
>> >
>> > then you don't need either the else clause or the dead NULL_RTX
>> assignment.
>>
>> I'd prefer that we use the expand_insn interface, which already has logic for
>> coercing inputs and outputs to predicates. Something like:
>>
>> machine_mode mode = TYPE_MODE (vectype);
>> unsigned int flags = aarch64_classify_vector_mode (mode);
>> if ((flags & VEC_ANY_SVE) && !TARGET_SVE2)
>> return false;
>>
>> ...
>>
>> expand_operand ops[3];
>> create_output_operand (&ops[0], *output, mode);
>> create_input_operand (&ops[1], in0, mode);
>> create_fixed_operand (&ops[2], in1);
>> expand_insn (insn_code, 3, ops);
>> *output = ops[0].value;
>> return true;
>>
>> On this function: why do we have the VECTOR_TYPE_P condition in:
>>
>
> It was left over after checking for optabs support. It's superfluous now.
>
> Bootstrapped Regtested on aarch64-none-linux-gnu and no issues.
>
> Ok for master?
OK, thanks.
Richard
> Thanks,
> Tamar
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> PR target/107988
> * config/aarch64/aarch64.cc
> (aarch64_vectorize_can_special_div_by_constant): Ensure input and output
> RTL are registers.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> PR target/107988
> * gcc.target/aarch64/pr107988-1.c: New test.
>
> --- inline copy of patch ---
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.cc b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.cc
> index 7bb0b7602ff6474410059494dd86b7be1621dde5..e1f34ef5da170ef11727e0c99a5bd42849c5d185 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.cc
> +++ b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.cc
> @@ -24395,7 +24395,8 @@ aarch64_vectorize_can_special_div_by_constant (enum tree_code code,
> || !TYPE_UNSIGNED (vectype))
> return false;
>
> - unsigned int flags = aarch64_classify_vector_mode (TYPE_MODE (vectype));
> + machine_mode mode = TYPE_MODE (vectype);
> + unsigned int flags = aarch64_classify_vector_mode (mode);
> if ((flags & VEC_ANY_SVE) && !TARGET_SVE2)
> return false;
>
> @@ -24411,15 +24412,14 @@ aarch64_vectorize_can_special_div_by_constant (enum tree_code code,
> if (in0 == NULL_RTX && in1 == NULL_RTX)
> return true;
>
> - if (!VECTOR_TYPE_P (vectype))
> - return false;
> -
> gcc_assert (output);
>
> - if (!*output)
> - *output = gen_reg_rtx (TYPE_MODE (vectype));
> -
> - emit_insn (gen_aarch64_bitmask_udiv3 (TYPE_MODE (vectype), *output, in0, in1));
> + expand_operand ops[3];
> + create_output_operand (&ops[0], *output, mode);
> + create_input_operand (&ops[1], in0, mode);
> + create_fixed_operand (&ops[2], in1);
> + expand_insn (insn_code, 3, ops);
> + *output = ops[0].value;
> return true;
> }
>
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/pr107988-1.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/pr107988-1.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c4fd290271b738345173b569bdc58c092fba7fe9
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/pr107988-1.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
> +/* { dg-additional-options "-O0" } */
> +typedef unsigned short __attribute__((__vector_size__ (16))) V;
> +
> +V
> +foo (V v)
> +{
> + v /= 255;
> + return v;
> +}
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-12-14 13:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-12-08 16:39 Tamar Christina
2022-12-08 17:00 ` Richard Earnshaw
2022-12-09 7:08 ` Richard Sandiford
2022-12-14 11:18 ` Tamar Christina
2022-12-14 13:50 ` Richard Sandiford [this message]
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=mpta63q5c2i.fsf@arm.com \
--to=richard.sandiford@arm.com \
--cc=Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com \
--cc=Marcus.Shawcroft@arm.com \
--cc=Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com \
--cc=Richard.Earnshaw@foss.arm.com \
--cc=Tamar.Christina@arm.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=nd@arm.com \
/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).