On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 8:48 PM Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 02, 2018 at 08:23:21PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > OK with a constraint adjustment below.
> >
> > > +(define_insn "*vec_concatv4sf_0"
> > > + [(set (match_operand:V4SF 0 "register_operand" "=v")
> > > + (vec_concat:V4SF
> > > + (match_operand:V2SF 1 "nonimmediate_operand" "xm")
> >
> > The constraint here can be "vm". There is no limitation on register
> > set for vmovq insn.
>
> That is what vec_concatv2df has also:
> (define_insn "vec_concatv2df"
> [(set (match_operand:V2DF 0 "register_operand" "=x,x,v,x,v,x,x, v,x,x")
> (vec_concat:V2DF
> (match_operand:DF 1 "nonimmediate_operand" " 0,x,v,m,m,0,x,xm,0,0")
> (match_operand:DF 2 "nonimm_or_0_operand" " x,x,v,1,1,m,m,
> C,x,m")))]
>
> I believe ix86_hard_regno_mode_ok just doesn't allow V2SFmode in xmm16+ regs:
> if (SSE_REGNO_P (regno))
> {
> ...
> /* xmm16-xmm31 are only available for AVX-512. */
> if (EXT_REX_SSE_REGNO_P (regno))
> return false;
IIRC, RA just won't allocate a register with a regno that won't
satisfy hard_regno_mode_ok. The quoted vec_concatv2df looks like an
unintended oversight (DFmode is supported in AVX512 regs through
VALID_AVX512F_SCALAR_MODE). But we can stay on the safe side and leave
MMX modes with "x" constraint.
So, patch is OK as is.
Thanks,
Uros.
> and V2SFmode is a VALID_MMX_REG_MODE, which is not mentioned anywhere before
> the the above conditional, only after it.
> While vmovq doesn't have this limitation, I believe RA will not try to put
> anything V2SFmode in those regs if lucky, otherwise it could be upset about
> it. Though, DFmode in the vec_concatv2df is different, because
> ix86_hard_regno_mode_ok should allow that in those registers, as DFmode is
> VALID_AVX512F_SCALAR_MODE.
>
> Jakub
