From: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com>
To: Tamar Christina <Tamar.Christina@arm.com>
Cc: "gcc-patches\@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>, nd <nd@arm.com>,
Marcus Shawcroft <Marcus.Shawcroft@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2]AArch64 Support new tbranch optab.
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2022 11:14:49 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <mptv8ngjwpi.fsf@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <VI1PR08MB53257BEA3481CD4BF261E891FF049@VI1PR08MB5325.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> (Tamar Christina's message of "Tue, 15 Nov 2022 11:00:01 +0000")
Tamar Christina <Tamar.Christina@arm.com> writes:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 10:51 AM
>> To: Tamar Christina <Tamar.Christina@arm.com>
>> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Richard Earnshaw
>> <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>; nd <nd@arm.com>; Marcus Shawcroft
>> <Marcus.Shawcroft@arm.com>
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2]AArch64 Support new tbranch optab.
>>
>> Tamar Christina <Tamar.Christina@arm.com> writes:
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com>
>> >> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 10:36 AM
>> >> To: Tamar Christina <Tamar.Christina@arm.com>
>> >> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Richard Earnshaw
>> >> <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>; nd <nd@arm.com>; Marcus Shawcroft
>> >> <Marcus.Shawcroft@arm.com>
>> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2]AArch64 Support new tbranch optab.
>> >>
>> >> Tamar Christina <Tamar.Christina@arm.com> writes:
>> >> > Hello,
>> >> >
>> >> > Ping and updated patch.
>> >> >
>> >> > Bootstrapped Regtested on aarch64-none-linux-gnu and no issues.
>> >> >
>> >> > Ok for master?
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks,
>> >> > Tamar
>> >> >
>> >> > gcc/ChangeLog:
>> >> >
>> >> > * config/aarch64/aarch64.md (*tb<optab><mode>1): Rename to...
>> >> > (*tb<optab><ALLI:mode><GPI:mode>1): ... this.
>> >> > (tbranch<mode>4): New.
>> >> >
>> >> > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>> >> >
>> >> > * gcc.target/aarch64/tbz_1.c: New test.
>> >> >
>> >> > --- inline copy of patch ---
>> >> >
>> >> > diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.md
>> >> > b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.md index
>> >> >
>> >>
>> 2bc2684b82c35a44e0a2cea6e3aaf32d939f8cdf..d7684c93fba5b717d568e1a4fd
>> >> 71
>> >> > 2bde55c7c72e 100644
>> >> > --- a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.md
>> >> > +++ b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.md
>> >> > @@ -943,12 +943,29 @@ (define_insn "*cb<optab><mode>1"
>> >> > (const_int 1)))]
>> >> > )
>> >> >
>> >> > -(define_insn "*tb<optab><mode>1"
>> >> > +(define_expand "tbranch<mode>4"
>> >> > [(set (pc) (if_then_else
>> >> > - (EQL (zero_extract:DI (match_operand:GPI 0 "register_operand"
>> >> "r")
>> >> > - (const_int 1)
>> >> > - (match_operand 1
>> >> > - "aarch64_simd_shift_imm_<mode>" "n"))
>> >> > + (match_operator 0 "aarch64_comparison_operator"
>> >> > + [(match_operand:ALLI 1 "register_operand")
>> >> > + (match_operand:ALLI 2
>> >> "aarch64_simd_shift_imm_<ALLI:mode>")])
>> >> > + (label_ref (match_operand 3 "" ""))
>> >> > + (pc)))]
>> >> > + "optimize > 0"
>> >>
>> >> Why's the pattern conditional on optimize? Seems a valid choice at -O0
>> too.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I had explained the reason why in the original patch, just didn't repeat it in
>> the ping:
>> >
>> > Instead of emitting the instruction directly I've chosen to expand the
>> > pattern using a zero extract and generating the existing pattern for
>> > comparisons for two
>> > reasons:
>> >
>> > 1. Allows for CSE of the actual comparison.
>> > 2. It looks like the code in expand makes the label as unused and removed
>> it
>> > if it doesn't see a separate reference to it.
>> >
>> > Because of this expansion though I disable the pattern at -O0 since we
>> have no combine in that case so we'd end up with worse code. I did try
>> emitting the pattern directly, but as mentioned in no#2 expand would then
>> kill the label.
>> >
>> > Basically I emit the pattern directly, immediately during expand the label is
>> marked as dead for some weird reason.
>>
>> Isn't #2 a bug though? It seems like something we should fix rather than
>> work around.
>
> Yes it's a bug ☹ ok if I'm going to fix that bug then do I need to split the optabs
> still? Isn't the problem atm that I need the split? If I'm emitting the instruction
> directly then the recog pattern for it can just be (eq (vec_extract x 1) 0) which is
> the correct semantics?
What rtx does the code that uses the optab pass for operand 0?
Richard
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-11-15 11:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-10-31 11:53 [PATCH 1/2]middle-end: Add new tbranch optab to add support for bit-test-and-branch operations Tamar Christina
2022-10-31 11:53 ` [PATCH 2/2]AArch64 Support new tbranch optab Tamar Christina
2022-11-14 15:58 ` Tamar Christina
2022-11-15 10:36 ` Richard Sandiford
2022-11-15 10:42 ` Tamar Christina
2022-11-15 10:50 ` Richard Sandiford
2022-11-15 11:00 ` Tamar Christina
2022-11-15 11:14 ` Richard Sandiford [this message]
2022-11-15 11:23 ` Tamar Christina
2022-11-15 11:33 ` Richard Sandiford
2022-11-15 11:39 ` Tamar Christina
2022-11-22 13:48 ` Tamar Christina
2022-11-22 14:00 ` Richard Sandiford
2022-11-24 12:18 ` Tamar Christina
2022-12-01 16:44 ` Tamar Christina
2022-12-05 14:06 ` Richard Sandiford
2022-10-31 11:54 ` [PATCH]AArch64 Extend umov and sbfx patterns Tamar Christina
2022-10-31 12:26 ` Richard Sandiford
2022-11-11 14:42 ` Tamar Christina
2022-11-15 11:10 ` Richard Sandiford
2022-10-31 21:16 ` [PATCH 1/2]middle-end: Add new tbranch optab to add support for bit-test-and-branch operations Jeff Law
2022-11-01 15:53 ` Tamar Christina
2022-11-01 17:00 ` Jeff Law
2022-11-02 9:55 ` Tamar Christina
2022-11-02 11:08 ` Aldy Hernandez
2022-11-05 14:23 ` Richard Biener
2022-11-14 15:56 ` Tamar Christina
2022-11-14 16:22 ` Jeff Law
2022-11-15 7:33 ` Richard Biener
2022-12-01 16:29 ` Tamar Christina
2022-12-02 7:09 ` Richard Biener
2022-12-05 12:00 ` Richard Sandiford
2022-12-05 13:14 ` Richard Sandiford
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=mptv8ngjwpi.fsf@arm.com \
--to=richard.sandiford@arm.com \
--cc=Marcus.Shawcroft@arm.com \
--cc=Richard.Earnshaw@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).