> Am 30.08.2019 um 16:40 schrieb Ilya Leoshkevich <i...@linux.ibm.com>:
>
>> Am 30.08.2019 um 09:12 schrieb Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 5:39 PM Ilya Leoshkevich <i...@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am 22.08.2019 um 15:45 schrieb Ilya Leoshkevich <i...@linux.ibm.com>:
>>>>
>>>> Bootstrap and regtest running on x86_64-redhat-linux and
>>>> s390x-redhat-linux.
>>>>
>>>> This patch series adds signaling FP comparison support (both scalar and
>>>> vector) to s390 backend.
>>>
>>> I'm running into a problem on ppc64 with this patch, and it would be
>>> great if someone could help me figure out the best way to resolve it.
>>>
>>> vector36.C test is failing because gimplifier produces the following
>>>
>>> _5 = _4 > { 2.0e+0, 2.0e+0, 2.0e+0, 2.0e+0 };
>>> _6 = VEC_COND_EXPR <_5, { -1, -1, -1, -1 }, { 0, 0, 0, 0 }>;
>>>
>>> from
>>>
>>> VEC_COND_EXPR < (*b > { 2.0e+0, 2.0e+0, 2.0e+0, 2.0e+0 }) ,
>>> { -1, -1, -1, -1 } ,
>>> { 0, 0, 0, 0 } >
>>>
>>> Since the comparison tree code is now hidden behind a temporary, my code
>>> does not have anything to pass to the backend. The reason for creating
>>> a temporary is that the comparison can trap, and so the following check
>>> in gimplify_expr fails:
>>>
>>> if (gimple_seq_empty_p (internal_post) && (*gimple_test_f) (*expr_p))
>>> goto out;
>>>
>>> gimple_test_f is is_gimple_condexpr, and it eventually calls
>>> operation_could_trap_p (GT).
>>>
>>> My current solution is to simply state that backend does not support
>>> SSA_NAME in vector comparisons, however, I don't like it, since it may
>>> cause performance regressions due to having to fall back to scalar
>>> comparisons.
>>>
>>> I was thinking about two other possible solutions:
>>>
>>> 1. Change the gimplifier to allow trapping vector comparisons. That's
>>> a bit complicated, because tree_could_throw_p checks not only for
>>> floating point traps, but also e.g. for array index out of bounds
>>> traps. So I would have to create a tree_could_throw_p version which
>>> disregards specific kinds of traps.
>>>
>>> 2. Change expand_vector_condition to follow SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT and use
>>> its tree_code instead of SSA_NAME. The potential problem I see with
>>> this is that there appears to be no guarantee that _5 will be inlined
>>> into _6 at a later point. So if we say that we don't need to fall
>>> back to scalar comparisons based on availability of vector >
>>> instruction and inlining does not happen, then what's actually will
>>> be required is vector selection (vsel on S/390), which might not be
>>> available in general case.
>>>
>>> What would be a better way to proceed here?
>>
>> On GIMPLE there isn't a good reason to split out trapping comparisons
>> from [VEC_]COND_EXPR - the gimplifier does this for GIMPLE_CONDs
>> where it is important because we'd have no way to represent EH info
>> when not done. It might be a bit awkward to preserve EH across RTL
>> expansion though in case the [VEC_]COND_EXPR are not expanded
>> as a single pattern, but I'm not sure.
>
> Ok, so I'm testing the following now - for the problematic test that
> helped:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/gimple-expr.c b/gcc/gimple-expr.c
> index b0c9f9b671a..940aa394769 100644
> --- a/gcc/gimple-expr.c
> +++ b/gcc/gimple-expr.c
> @@ -602,17 +602,33 @@ is_gimple_lvalue (tree t)
> || TREE_CODE (t) == BIT_FIELD_REF);
> }
>
> -/* Return true if T is a GIMPLE condition. */
> +/* Helper for is_gimple_condexpr and is_possibly_trapping_gimple_condexpr.
> */
>
> -bool
> -is_gimple_condexpr (tree t)
> +static bool
> +is_gimple_condexpr_1 (tree t, bool allow_traps)
> {
> return (is_gimple_val (t) || (COMPARISON_CLASS_P (t)
> - && !tree_could_throw_p (t)
> + && (allow_traps || !tree_could_throw_p (t))
> && is_gimple_val (TREE_OPERAND (t, 0))
> && is_gimple_val (TREE_OPERAND (t, 1))));
> }
>
> +/* Return true if T is a GIMPLE condition. */
> +
> +bool
> +is_gimple_condexpr (tree t)
> +{
> + return is_gimple_condexpr_1 (t, false);
> +}
> +
> +/* Like is_gimple_condexpr, but allow the T to trap. */
> +
> +bool
> +is_possibly_trapping_gimple_condexpr (tree t)
> +{
> + return is_gimple_condexpr_1 (t, true);
> +}
> +
> /* Return true if T is a gimple address. */
>
> bool
> diff --git a/gcc/gimple-expr.h b/gcc/gimple-expr.h
> index 1ad1432bd17..20546ca5b99 100644
> --- a/gcc/gimple-expr.h
> +++ b/gcc/gimple-expr.h
> @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ extern void gimple_cond_get_ops_from_tree (tree, enum
> tree_code *, tree *,
> tree *);
> extern bool is_gimple_lvalue (tree);
> extern bool is_gimple_condexpr (tree);
> +extern bool is_possibly_trapping_gimple_condexpr (tree);
> extern bool is_gimple_address (const_tree);
> extern bool is_gimple_invariant_address (const_tree);
> extern bool is_gimple_ip_invariant_address (const_tree);
> diff --git a/gcc/gimplify.c b/gcc/gimplify.c
> index daa0b71c191..4e6256390c0 100644
> --- a/gcc/gimplify.c
> +++ b/gcc/gimplify.c
> @@ -12973,6 +12973,7 @@ gimplify_expr (tree *expr_p, gimple_seq *pre_p,
> gimple_seq *post_p,
> else if (gimple_test_f == is_gimple_val
> || gimple_test_f == is_gimple_call_addr
> || gimple_test_f == is_gimple_condexpr
> + || gimple_test_f == is_possibly_trapping_gimple_condexpr
> || gimple_test_f == is_gimple_mem_rhs
> || gimple_test_f == is_gimple_mem_rhs_or_call
> || gimple_test_f == is_gimple_reg_rhs
> @@ -13814,7 +13815,7 @@ gimplify_expr (tree *expr_p, gimple_seq *pre_p,
> gimple_seq *post_p,
> enum gimplify_status r0, r1, r2;
>
> r0 = gimplify_expr (&TREE_OPERAND (*expr_p, 0), pre_p,
> - post_p, is_gimple_condexpr, fb_rvalue);
> + post_p, is_possibly_trapping_gimple_condexpr,
> fb_rvalue);
> r1 = gimplify_expr (&TREE_OPERAND (*expr_p, 1), pre_p,
> post_p, is_gimple_val, fb_rvalue);
> r2 = gimplify_expr (&TREE_OPERAND (*expr_p, 2), pre_p,
> diff --git a/gcc/tree-cfg.c b/gcc/tree-cfg.c
> index b75fdb2e63f..175b858f56b 100644
> --- a/gcc/tree-cfg.c
> +++ b/gcc/tree-cfg.c
> @@ -4121,8 +4121,11 @@ verify_gimple_assign_ternary (gassign *stmt)
> return true;
> }
>
> - if (((rhs_code == VEC_COND_EXPR || rhs_code == COND_EXPR)
> - ? !is_gimple_condexpr (rhs1) : !is_gimple_val (rhs1))
> + if ((rhs_code == VEC_COND_EXPR
> + ? !is_possibly_trapping_gimple_condexpr (rhs1)
> + : (rhs_code == COND_EXPR
> + ? !is_gimple_condexpr (rhs1)
> + : !is_gimple_val (rhs1)))
> || !is_gimple_val (rhs2)
> || !is_gimple_val (rhs3))
> {
>
>>
>> To go this route you'd have to split the is_gimple_condexpr check
>> I guess and eventually users turning [VEC_]COND_EXPR into conditional
>> code (do we have any?) have to be extra careful then.
>>
>
> We have expand_vector_condition, which turns VEC_COND_EXPR into
> COND_EXPR - but this should be harmless, right? I could not find
> anything else.
Ugh, I've realized I need to check not only VEC_COND_EXPR, but also
COND_EXPR usages. There is, of course, a great deal more code, so I'm
not sure whether I looked exhaustively through it, but there are at
least store_expr and do_jump which do exactly this during expansion.
Should we worry about EH edges at this point?
