On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Artem Shinkarov
<artyom.shinkar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Richard Guenther
> <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Artem Shinkarov
>> <artyom.shinkar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Richard Guenther
>>> <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Artem Shinkarov
>>>> <artyom.shinkar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Richard Guenther
>>>>> <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Artem Shinkarov
>>>>>> <artyom.shinkar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Here is a cleaned-up patch without the hook. Mostly it works in a way
>>>>>>> we discussed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I think it is a right time to do something about vcond patterns,
>>>>>>> which would allow me to get rid of conversions that I need to put all
>>>>>>> over the code.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also at the moment the patch breaks lto frontend with a simple example:
>>>>>>> #define vector(elcount, type) \
>>>>>>> __attribute__((vector_size((elcount)*sizeof(type)))) type
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> int main (int argc, char *argv[]) {
>>>>>>> vector (4, float) f0;
>>>>>>> vector (4, float) f1;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> f0 = f1 != f0
>>>>>>> ? (vector (4, float)){-1,-1,-1,-1} : (vector (4,
>>>>>>> float)){0,0,0,0};
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> return (int)f0[argc];
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> test-lto.c:8:14: internal compiler error: in convert, at
>>>>>>> lto/lto-lang.c:1244
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I looked into the file, the conversion function is defined as
>>>>>>> gcc_unreachable (). I am not very familiar with lto, so I don't really
>>>>>>> know what is the right way to treat the conversions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And I seriously need help with backend patterns.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the patch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The documentation needs review by a native english speaker, but here
>>>>>> are some factual comments:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +In C vector comparison is supported within standard comparison
>>>>>> operators:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it should read 'In GNU C' here and everywhere else as this is a GNU
>>>>>> extension.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The result of the
>>>>>> +comparison is a signed integer-type vector where the size of each
>>>>>> +element must be the same as the size of compared vectors element.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The result type of the comparison is determined by the C frontend,
>>>>>> it isn't under control of the user. What you are implying here is
>>>>>> restrictions on vector assignments, which are documented elsewhere.
>>>>>> I'd just say
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 'The result of the comparison is a vector of the same width and number
>>>>>> of elements as the comparison operands with a signed integral element
>>>>>> type.'
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +In addition to the vector comparison C supports conditional expressions
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See above.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +For the convenience condition in the vector conditional can be just a
>>>>>> +vector of signed integer type.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 'of integer type.' I don't see a reason to disallow unsigned integers,
>>>>>> they can be equally well compared against zero.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll have a final go on the documentation, it is untouched from the old
>>>>> patches.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Index: gcc/targhooks.h
>>>>>> ===================================================================
>>>>>> --- gcc/targhooks.h (revision 177665)
>>>>>> +++ gcc/targhooks.h (working copy)
>>>>>> @@ -86,6 +86,7 @@ extern int default_builtin_vectorization
>>>>>> extern tree default_builtin_reciprocal (unsigned int, bool, bool);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> extern bool default_builtin_vector_alignment_reachable (const_tree,
>>>>>> bool);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> extern bool
>>>>>> default_builtin_support_vector_misalignment (enum machine_mode mode,
>>>>>> const_tree,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> spurious whitespace change.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Index: gcc/optabs.c
>>>>>> ===================================================================
>>>>>> --- gcc/optabs.c (revision 177665)
>>>>>> +++ gcc/optabs.c (working copy)
>>>>>> @@ -6572,16 +6572,36 @@ expand_vec_cond_expr (tree vec_cond_type
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> + else
>>>>>> + {
>>>>>> + rtx rtx_op0;
>>>>>> + rtx vec;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + rtx_op0 = expand_normal (op0);
>>>>>> + comparison = gen_rtx_NE (mode, NULL_RTX, NULL_RTX);
>>>>>> + vec = CONST0_RTX (mode);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + create_output_operand (&ops[0], target, mode);
>>>>>> + create_input_operand (&ops[1], rtx_op1, mode);
>>>>>> + create_input_operand (&ops[2], rtx_op2, mode);
>>>>>> + create_input_operand (&ops[3], comparison, mode);
>>>>>> + create_input_operand (&ops[4], rtx_op0, mode);
>>>>>> + create_input_operand (&ops[5], vec, mode);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> this still builds the fake(?) != comparison, but as you said you need
>>>>>> help
>>>>>> with the .md part if we want to use a machine specific pattern for this
>>>>>> case (which we eventually want, for the sake of using XOP vcond).
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I am waiting for it. This is the only way at the moment to make
>>>>> sure that in
>>>>> m = a > b;
>>>>> r = m ? c : d;
>>>>>
>>>>> m in the vcond is not transformed into the m != 0.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Index: gcc/target.h
>>>>>> ===================================================================
>>>>>> --- gcc/target.h (revision 177665)
>>>>>> +++ gcc/target.h (working copy)
>>>>>> @@ -51,6 +51,7 @@
>>>>>> #define GCC_TARGET_H
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #include "insn-modes.h"
>>>>>> +#include "gimple.h"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #ifdef ENABLE_CHECKING
>>>>>>
>>>>>> spurious change.
>>>>>
>>>>> Old stuff, fixed.
>>>>>
>>>>>> @@ -9073,26 +9082,28 @@ fold_comparison (location_t loc, enum tr
>>>>>> floating-point, we can only do some of these simplifications.) */
>>>>>> if (operand_equal_p (arg0, arg1, 0))
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> + tree arg0_type = TREE_TYPE (arg0);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> switch (code)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> case EQ_EXPR:
>>>>>> - if (! FLOAT_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (arg0))
>>>>>> - || ! HONOR_NANS (TYPE_MODE (TREE_TYPE (arg0))))
>>>>>> + if (! FLOAT_TYPE_P (arg0_type)
>>>>>> + || ! HONOR_NANS (TYPE_MODE (arg0_type)))
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Likewise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @@ -8440,6 +8440,37 @@ expand_expr_real_2 (sepops ops, rtx targ
>>>>>> case UNGE_EXPR:
>>>>>> case UNEQ_EXPR:
>>>>>> case LTGT_EXPR:
>>>>>> + if (TREE_CODE (ops->type) == VECTOR_TYPE)
>>>>>> + {
>>>>>> + enum tree_code code = ops->code;
>>>>>> + tree arg0 = ops->op0;
>>>>>> + tree arg1 = ops->op1;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> move this code to do_store_flag (we really store a flag value). It
>>>>>> should
>>>>>> also simply do what expand_vec_cond_expr does, probably simply
>>>>>> calling that with the {-1,...} {0,...} extra args should work.
>>>>>
>>>>> I started to do that, but the code in do_store_flag is completely
>>>>> different from what I am doing, and it looks confusing. I just call
>>>>> expand_vec_cond_expr and that is it. I can write a separate function,
>>>>> but the code is quite small.
>>>>
>>>> Hm? I see in your patch
>>>>
>>>> Index: gcc/expr.c
>>>> ===================================================================
>>>> --- gcc/expr.c (revision 177665)
>>>> +++ gcc/expr.c (working copy)
>>>> @@ -8440,6 +8440,37 @@ expand_expr_real_2 (sepops ops, rtx targ
>>>> case UNGE_EXPR:
>>>> case UNEQ_EXPR:
>>>> case LTGT_EXPR:
>>>> + if (TREE_CODE (ops->type) == VECTOR_TYPE)
>>>> + {
>>>> + enum tree_code code = ops->code;
>>>> + tree arg0 = ops->op0;
>>>> + tree arg1 = ops->op1;
>>>> + tree arg_type = TREE_TYPE (arg0);
>>>> + tree el_type = TREE_TYPE (arg_type);
>>>> + tree t, ifexp, if_true, if_false;
>>>> +
>>>> + el_type = lang_hooks.types.type_for_size (TYPE_PRECISION
>>>> (el_type), 0);
>>>> +
>>>> +
>>>> + ifexp = build2 (code, type, arg0, arg1);
>>>> + if_true = build_vector_from_val (type, build_int_cst (el_type,
>>>> -1));
>>>> + if_false = build_vector_from_val (type, build_int_cst (el_type,
>>>> 0));
>>>> +
>>>> + if (arg_type != type)
>>>> + {
>>>> + if_true = convert (arg_type, if_true);
>>>> + if_false = convert (arg_type, if_false);
>>>> + t = build3 (VEC_COND_EXPR, arg_type, ifexp, if_true,
>>>> if_false);
>>>> + t = convert (type, t);
>>>> + }
>>>> + else
>>>> + t = build3 (VEC_COND_EXPR, type, ifexp, if_true, if_false);
>>>> +
>>>> + return expand_expr (t,
>>>> + modifier != EXPAND_STACK_PARM ? target :
>>>> NULL_RTX,
>>>> + tmode != VOIDmode ? tmode : mode,
>>>> + modifier);
>>>> + }
>>>>
>>>> that's not exactly "calling expand_vec_cond_expr".
>>>
>>> Well, actually it is. Keep in mind that clean backend would imply
>>> removing the conversions. But I'll make a function.
>>
>> Why does
>>
>> return expand_vec_cond_expr (build2 (ops->code, type, ops->op0, ops->op1),
>> build_vector_from_val
>> (type, build_int_cst (el_type, -1)),
>> build_vector_from_val
>> (type, build_int_cst (el_type, 0)));
>>
>> not work? If you push the conversions to expand_vec_cond_expr
>> by doing them on RTL you simplify things here and remove the requirement
>> from doing them in the C frontend for VEC_COND_EXPR as well.
>
> It does not work because vcond <a > b, c, d> requires a,b,c,d to have
> the same type. Now here we are dealing only with comparisons, so in
> case of floats we have vcond < f0 > f1, {-1,...}, {0,...}> which we
> have to transform into
> (vsi)(vcond< f0 >f1, (vsf){-1,...}, (vsf){0,...}>).
>
> Ok, so is it ok to do make this conversion here for the real types?
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for the still required conversions, you should be able to delay those
>>>>>> from the C frontend (and here) to expand_vec_cond_expr by, after
>>>>>> expanding op1 and op2, wrapping a subreg around it with a proper mode
>>>>>> (using convert_mode (GET_MODE (comparison), rtx_op1)) should work),
>>>>>> and then convert the result back to the original mode.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll leave the C frontend pieces of the patch for review by Joseph, but
>>>>>
>>>>> Conversions are there until we fix the backend. When backend will be
>>>>> able to digest f0 > f1 ? int0 : int1, all the conversions will go
>>>>> away.
>>>>>
>>>>>> +static tree
>>>>>> +fold_build_vec_cond_expr (tree ifexp, tree op1, tree op2)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> is missing a function comment.
>>>>>
>>>>> fixed.
>>>>>
>>>>>> +static tree
>>>>>> +do_compare (gimple_stmt_iterator *gsi, tree inner_type, tree a, tree b,
>>>>>> + tree bitpos, tree bitsize, enum tree_code code)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + tree cond;
>>>>>> + tree comp_type;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + a = tree_vec_extract (gsi, inner_type, a, bitsize, bitpos);
>>>>>> + b = tree_vec_extract (gsi, inner_type, b, bitsize, bitpos);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + comp_type = lang_hooks.types.type_for_size (TYPE_PRECISION
>>>>>> (inner_type), 0);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Use
>>>>>>
>>>>>> comp_type = build_nonstandard_integer_type (TYPE_PRECISION
>>>>>> (inner_type), 0);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> instead. But I think you don't want to use TYPE_PRECISION on
>>>>>> FP types. Instead you want a signed integer type of the same (mode)
>>>>>> size as the vector element type, thus
>>>>>>
>>>>>> comp_type = build_nonstandard_integer_type (GET_MODE_BITSIZE
>>>>>> (TYPE_MODE (inner_type)), 0);
>>>>>
>>>>> Hm, I thought that at this stage we don't wan to know anything about
>>>>> modes. I mean here I am really building the same integer type as the
>>>>> operands of the comparison have. But I can use MODE_BITSIZE as well, I
>>>>> don't think that it could happen that the size of the mode is
>>>>> different from the size of the type. Or could it?
>>>>
>>>> The comparison could be on floating-point types where TYPE_PRECISION
>>>> can be, for example, 80 for x87 doubles. You want an integer type
>>>> of the same width, so yes, GET_MODE_BITSIZE is the correct thing
>>>> to use here.
>>>
>>> Ok.
>>>
>>>>>> + cond = gimplify_build2 (gsi, code, comp_type, a, b);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the result type of a comparison is boolean_type_node, not comp_type.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> + cond = gimplify_build2 (gsi, code, comp_type, a, b);
>>>>>> + return gimplify_build3 (gsi, COND_EXPR, comp_type, cond,
>>>>>> + build_int_cst (comp_type, -1),
>>>>>> + build_int_cst (comp_type, 0));
>>>>>>
>>>>>> writing this as
>>>>>>
>>>>>> + return gimplify_build3 (gsi, COND_EXPR, comp_type,
>>>>>> fold_build2 (code, boolean_type_node, a, b),
>>>>>> + build_int_cst (comp_type, -1),
>>>>>> + build_int_cst (comp_type, 0));
>>>>>>
>>>>>> will get the gimplifier a better chance at simplifcation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> + if (! expand_vec_cond_expr_p (type, TYPE_MODE (type)))
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we are expecting the scalar type and the vector mode here
>>>>>> from looking at the single existing caller. It probably doesn't make
>>>>>> a difference (we only check TYPE_UNSIGNED of it, which should
>>>>>> also work for vector types), but let's be consistent. Thus,
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok.
>>>>>
>>>>>> if (! expand_vec_cond_expr_p (TREE_TYPE (type), TYPE_MODE (type)))
>>>>>>
>>>>>> + if (! expand_vec_cond_expr_p (type, TYPE_MODE (type)))
>>>>>> + t = expand_vector_piecewise (gsi, do_compare, type,
>>>>>> + TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (op0)), op0, op1, code);
>>>>>> + else
>>>>>> + t = gimplify_build2 (gsi, code, type, op0, op1);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the else case looks odd. Why re-build a stmt that already exists?
>>>>>> Simply return NULL_TREE instead?
>>>>>
>>>>> I can adjust. The reason it is written that way is that
>>>>> expand_vector_operations_1 is using the result of the function to
>>>>> update rhs.
>>>>
>>>> Ok, so it should check whether there was any lowering done then.
>>>>
>>>>>> +static tree
>>>>>> +expand_vec_cond_expr_piecewise (gimple_stmt_iterator *gsi, tree exp)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> + /* Expand vector condition inside of VEC_COND_EXPR. */
>>>>>> + if (! expand_vec_cond_expr_p (TREE_TYPE (cond),
>>>>>> + TYPE_MODE (TREE_TYPE (cond))))
>>>>>> + {
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> + new_rhs = expand_vector_piecewise (gsi, do_compare,
>>>>>> + TREE_TYPE (cond),
>>>>>> + TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (op1)),
>>>>>> + op0, op1, TREE_CODE (cond));
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure it is beneficial to expand a < b ? v0 : v1 to
>>>>>>
>>>>>> tem = { a[0] < b[0] ? -1 : 0, ... }
>>>>>> v0 & tem | v1 & ~tem;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> instead of
>>>>>>
>>>>>> { a[0] < b[0] ? v0[0] : v1[0], ... }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> even if the bitwise operations could be carried out using vectors.
>>>>>> It's definitely beneficial to do the first if the CPU can create the
>>>>>> bitmask.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> o_O
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought you always wanted to do (m & v0) | (~m & v1).
>>>>> Do you want to have two cases of the expansion then -- when we have
>>>>> mask available and when we don't? But it is really unlikely that we
>>>>> can get the mask, but cannot get vcond. Because condition is actually
>>>>> vcond. So once again -- do we always expand to {a[0] > b[0] ? v[0] :
>>>>> c[0], ...}?
>>>>
>>>> Hm, yeah. I suppose with the current setup it's hard to only
>>>> get the mask but not the full vcond ;) So it probably makes
>>>> sense to always expand to {a[0] > b[0] ? v[0] :c[0],...} as
>>>> fallback. Sorry for the confusion ;)
>>>
>>> Ok.
>>>
>>>>>> + /* Run vecower on the expresisons we have introduced. */
>>>>>> + for (; gsi_tmp.ptr != gsi->ptr; gsi_next (&gsi_tmp))
>>>>>> + expand_vector_operations_1 (&gsi_tmp);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> do not use gsi.ptr directly, use gsi_stmt (gsi_tm) != gsi_stmt (gsi)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +static bool
>>>>>> +is_vector_comparison (gimple_stmt_iterator *gsi, tree expr)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This function is lacking a comment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @@ -450,11 +637,41 @@ expand_vector_operations_1 (gimple_stmt_
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> + /* Try to get rid from the useless vector comparison
>>>>>> + x != {0,0,...} which is inserted by the typechecker. */
>>>>>> + if (COMPARISON_CLASS_P (cond) && TREE_CODE (cond) == NE_EXPR)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> how and why? You simply drop that comparison - that doesn't look
>>>>>> correct. And in fact TREE_OPERAND (cond, 0) will never be a
>>>>>> comparison - that wouldn't be valid gimple. Please leave this
>>>>>> optimization to SSA based forward propagation (I can help you here
>>>>>> once the patch is in).
>>>>>
>>>>> No-no-no. This is the second part of avoiding
>>>>> m = a > b;
>>>>> r = m ? v0 : v1;
>>>>>
>>>>> to prevent m expansion to m != {0}.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not _simply_ drop the comparison. I drop it only if
>>>>> is_vector_comparison returned true. It means that we can never get
>>>>> into the situation that we are dropping actually a comparison inserted
>>>>> by the user. But what I really want to achieve here is to drop the
>>>>> comparison that the frontend inserts every time when it sees an
>>>>> expression there.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I said earlier, tree forward propagation kicks only using -On, and
>>>>> I would really like to make sure that I can get rid of useless != {0}
>>>>> at any level.
>>>
>>>> Please don't. If the language extension forces a != 0 then it should
>>>> appear at -O0. The code is fishy anyway in the way it walks stmts
>>>> in is_vector_comparison. At least I don't like to see this optimization
>>>> done here for the sake of -O0 in this initial patch - you could try
>>>> arguing about it as a followup improvement (well, probably with not
>>>> much luck). -O0 is about compile-speed and debugging, doing
>>>> data-flow by walking stmts backward is slow.
>>>
>>> Ok, then I seriously don't see any motivation to support the
>>> VEC_COND_EXPR. The following code:
>>>
>>> m = a > b;
>>> r = (m & v0) | (~m & v1)
>>>
>>> gives me much more flexibility and control. What the VEC_COND_EXPR is
>>> good for? Syntactical sugar?
>>>
>>> How about throwing away all the VEC_COND_EXPR parts supporting only
>>> conditions (implicitly expressed using vconds)? If we would agree on
>>> implicit conversions for real types, then this is a functionality that
>>> perfectly satisfies my needs.
>>>
>>> I don't see any interest from the backend people and I cannot wait
>>> forever, so why don't we start with a simple thing?
>>
>> But the simple thing is already what the backend supports.
>>
>> Richard.
>>
>
> Well, it is not "what" it is "how" -- that is what we are discussing
> for three weeks already.
>
> Ok, so the question now is, whether it is fine to have conversions
> inside expand_expr_real_2? If we agree that it is ok to do, then I can
> adjust the patch.
Yes, it is ok to have them there, but preferably on RTL and preferably
in expand_vec_cond_expr by using simplify_gen_subreg, untested patch:
Index: optabs.c
===================================================================
--- optabs.c (revision 178060)
+++ optabs.c (working copy)
@@ -6664,16 +6664,20 @@ expand_vec_cond_expr (tree vec_cond_type
comparison = vector_compare_rtx (op0, unsignedp, icode);
rtx_op1 = expand_normal (op1);
+ rtx_op1 = simplify_gen_subreg (GET_MODE (comparison), rtx_op1,
+ GET_MODE (rtx_op1), 0);
rtx_op2 = expand_normal (op2);
+ rtx_op2 = simplify_gen_subreg (GET_MODE (comparison), rtx_op2,
+ GET_MODE (rtx_op2), 0);
- create_output_operand (&ops[0], target, mode);
- create_input_operand (&ops[1], rtx_op1, mode);
- create_input_operand (&ops[2], rtx_op2, mode);
+ create_output_operand (&ops[0], target, GET_MODE (comparison));
+ create_input_operand (&ops[1], rtx_op1, GET_MODE (comparison));
+ create_input_operand (&ops[2], rtx_op2, GET_MODE (comparison));
create_fixed_operand (&ops[3], comparison);
create_fixed_operand (&ops[4], XEXP (comparison, 0));
create_fixed_operand (&ops[5], XEXP (comparison, 1));
expand_insn (icode, 6, ops);
- return ops[0].value;
+ return simplify_gen_subreg (mode, ops[0].value, GET_MODE (comparison), 0);
}
>
> Artem.
>
