> -----Original Message-----
> From: Prathamesh Kulkarni <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org>
> Sent: 21 June 2021 09:33
> To: Kyrylo Tkachov <kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com>
> Cc: gcc Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
> Subject: Re: [ARM] PR97906 - Missed lowering abs(a) >= abs(b) to vacge
>
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 at 15:49, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 at 16:15, Kyrylo Tkachov <kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Prathamesh Kulkarni <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org>
> > > > Sent: 14 June 2021 08:58
> > > > To: gcc Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Kyrylo Tkachov
> > > > <kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com>
> > > > Subject: Re: [ARM] PR97906 - Missed lowering abs(a) >= abs(b) to vacge
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 at 12:46, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > > > <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 at 16:03, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > > > > <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > As mentioned in PR, for following test-case:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > #include <arm_neon.h>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > uint32x2_t f1(float32x2_t a, float32x2_t b)
> > > > > > {
> > > > > > return vabs_f32 (a) >= vabs_f32 (b);
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > uint32x2_t f2(float32x2_t a, float32x2_t b)
> > > > > > {
> > > > > > return (uint32x2_t) __builtin_neon_vcagev2sf (a, b);
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We generate vacge for f2, but with -ffast-math, we generate
> following
> > > > for f1:
> > > > > > f1:
> > > > > > vabs.f32 d1, d1
> > > > > > vabs.f32 d0, d0
> > > > > > vcge.f32 d0, d0, d1
> > > > > > bx lr
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This happens because, the middle-end inverts the comparison to b
> <= a,
> > > > > > .optimized dump:
> > > > > > _8 = __builtin_neon_vabsv2sf (a_4(D));
> > > > > > _7 = __builtin_neon_vabsv2sf (b_5(D));
> > > > > > _1 = _7 <= _8;
> > > > > > _2 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<vector(2) int>(_1);
> > > > > > _6 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<uint32x2_t>(_2);
> > > > > > return _6;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > and combine fails to match the following pattern:
> > > > > > (set (reg:V2SI 121)
> > > > > > (neg:V2SI (le:V2SI (abs:V2SF (reg:V2SF 123))
> > > > > > (abs:V2SF (reg:V2SF 122)))))
> > > > > >
> > > > > > because neon_vca<cmp_op><mode> pattern has GTGE code
> iterator.
> > > > > > The attached patch adjusts the neon_vca patterns to use GLTE
> instead
> > > > > > similar to neon_vca<cmp_op><mode>_fp16insn, and removes
> > > > NEON_VACMP iterator.
> > > > > > Code-gen with patch:
> > > > > > f1:
> > > > > > vacle.f32 d0, d1, d0
> > > > > > bx lr
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bootstrapped + tested on arm-linux-gnueabihf and cross-tested on
> arm*-
> > > > *-*.
> > > > > > OK to commit ?
> > >
> > > Is that inversion guaranteed to happen (is it a canonicalization rule)?
> > I think it follows the following rule for canonicalization from
> > tree_swap_operands_p:
> > /* It is preferable to swap two SSA_NAME to ensure a canonical form
> > for commutative and comparison operators. Ensuring a canonical
> > form allows the optimizers to find additional redundancies without
> > having to explicitly check for both orderings. */
> > if (TREE_CODE (arg0) == SSA_NAME
> > && TREE_CODE (arg1) == SSA_NAME
> > && SSA_NAME_VERSION (arg0) > SSA_NAME_VERSION (arg1))
> > return 1;
> >
> > For the above test-case, it's ccp1 that inverts the comparison.
> > The input to ccp1 pass is:
> > _12 = __builtin_neon_vabsv2sf (a_6(D));
> > _14 = _12;
> > _1 = _14;
> > _11 = __builtin_neon_vabsv2sf (b_8(D));
> > _16 = _11;
> > _2 = _16;
> > _3 = _1 >= _2;
> > _4 = VEC_COND_EXPR <_3, { -1, -1 }, { 0, 0 }>;
> > _10 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<uint32x2_t>(_4);
> > return _10;
> >
> > _3 = _1 >= _2 is folded into:
> > _3 = _12 >= _11
> >
> > Since _12 is higher ssa version than _11, it is canonicalized to:
> > _3 = _11 <= _12.
> >
> Hi Kyrill,
> Is it OK to push given the above canonicalization ?
Hi Prathamesh,
Yes, that's okay, thanks for checking.
Kyrill
>
> Thanks,
> Prathamesh
> > Thanks,
> > Prathamesh
> > > If so, ok.
> > > Thanks,
> > > Kyrill
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Prathamesh
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Prathamesh
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Prathamesh
