On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 5:06 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
<prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> The attached patch tries to fix PR86753.
>
> For following test:
> void
> f1 (int *restrict x, int *restrict y, int *restrict z)
> {
> for (int i = 0; i < 100; ++i)
> x[i] = y[i] ? z[i] : 10;
> }
>
> vect dump shows:
> vect_cst__42 = { 0, ... };
> vect_cst__48 = { 0, ... };
>
> vect__4.7_41 = .MASK_LOAD (vectp_y.5_38, 4B, loop_mask_40);
> _4 = *_3;
> _5 = z_12(D) + _2;
> mask__35.8_43 = vect__4.7_41 != vect_cst__42;
> _35 = _4 != 0;
> vec_mask_and_46 = mask__35.8_43 & loop_mask_40;
> vect_iftmp.11_47 = .MASK_LOAD (vectp_z.9_44, 4B, vec_mask_and_46);
> iftmp.0_13 = 0;
> vect_iftmp.12_50 = VEC_COND_EXPR <vect__4.7_41 != vect_cst__48,
> vect_iftmp.11_47, vect_cst__49>;
>
> and following code-gen:
> L2:
> ld1w z0.s, p2/z, [x1, x3, lsl 2]
> cmpne p1.s, p3/z, z0.s, #0
> cmpne p0.s, p2/z, z0.s, #0
> ld1w z0.s, p0/z, [x2, x3, lsl 2]
> sel z0.s, p1, z0.s, z1.s
>
> We could reuse vec_mask_and_46 in vec_cond_expr since the conditions
> vect__4.7_41 != vect_cst__48 and vect__4.7_41 != vect_cst__42
> are equivalent, and vect_iftmp.11_47 depends on vect__4.7_41 != vect_cst__48.
>
> I suppose in general for vec_cond_expr <C, T, E> if T comes from masked load,
> which is conditional on C, then we could reuse the mask used in load,
> in vec_cond_expr ?
>
> The patch maintains a hash_map cond_to_vec_mask
> from <cond, loop_mask -> vec_mask (with loop predicate applied).
> In prepare_load_store_mask, we record <cond, loop_mask> -> vec_mask &
> loop_mask,
> and in vectorizable_condition, we check if <cond, loop_mask> exists in
> cond_to_vec_mask
> and if found, the corresponding vec_mask is used as 1st operand of
> vec_cond_expr.
>
> <cond, loop_mask> is represented with cond_vmask_key, and the patch
> adds tree_cond_ops to represent condition operator and operands coming
> either from cond_expr
> or a gimple comparison stmt. If the stmt is not comparison, it returns
> <ne_expr, lhs, 0> and inserts that into cond_to_vec_mask.
>
> With patch, the redundant p1 is eliminated and sel uses p0 for above test.
>
> For following test:
> void
> f2 (int *restrict x, int *restrict y, int *restrict z, int fallback)
> {
> for (int i = 0; i < 100; ++i)
> x[i] = y[i] ? z[i] : fallback;
> }
>
> input to vectorizer has operands swapped in cond_expr:
> _36 = _4 != 0;
> iftmp.0_14 = .MASK_LOAD (_5, 32B, _36);
> iftmp.0_8 = _4 == 0 ? fallback_12(D) : iftmp.0_14;
>
> So we need to check for inverted condition in cond_to_vec_mask,
> and swap the operands.
> Does the patch look OK so far ?
>
> One major issue remaining with the patch is value numbering.
> Currently, it does value numbering for entire function using sccvn
> during start of vect pass, which is too expensive since we only need
> block based VN. I am looking into that.
Why do you need it at all? We run VN on the if-converted loop bodies btw.
Richard.
>
> Thanks,
> Prathamesh
