On Donnerstag, 2. August 2018 23:15:28 CEST Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2018, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
> > I forgot. One of the things that makes using __builtin_shuffle ugly is
> > that
> > __v4si as the suffle argument needs to be in _mm_move_ss, is declared
> > in emmintrin.h, but _mm_move_ss is in xmmintrin.h.
>
> __v4si is some internal detail, I don't see much issue with moving it to
> xmmintrin.h if you want to use it there.
>
> > In general the gcc __builtin_shuffle syntax with the argument being a
> > vector is kind of ackward. At least for the declaring intrinsics, the
> > clang still where the permutator is extra argument is easier to deal
> > with:
> > __builtin_shuffle(a, b, (__v4si){4, 0, 1, 2})
> > vs
> > __builtin_shuffle(a, b, 4, 0, 1, 2)
>
> __builtin_shufflevector IIRC
>
> >> The question is what users expect and get when they use -O0 with
> >> intrinsics?>
> > Here is the version with __builtin_shuffle. It might be more expectable
> > -O0, but it is also uglier.
>
> I am not convinced -O0 is very important.
>
Me neither, and in any case I would argue the logic that recognizes the vector
constructions patterns are not optimizations but instruction matching.
> If you start extending your approach to _mm_add_sd and others, while one
> instruction is easy enough to recognize, if we put several in a row, they
> will be partially simplified and may become harder to recognize.
> { x*(y+v[0]-z), v[1] } requires that you notice that the upper part of
> this vector is v[1], i.e. the upper part of a vector whose lower part
> appears somewhere in the arbitrarily complex expression for the lower
> part of the result. And you then have to propagate the fact that you are
> doing vector operations all the way back to v[0].
>
> I don't have a strong opinion on what the best approach is.
Yes, I am not sure all of those could be done exhaustively with the existing
logic, and it might also be of dubious value as in almost all cases the ps
instructions have the same latency and bandwidth as the ss instructions, so
developers should probably use _ps versions as they are scheduled better by
the compiler (or at least better by gcc).
It was just an idea, and I haven't tried it at this point.
'Allan
