On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 at 16:26, Prathamesh Kulkarni
<prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 at 20:51, Christophe LYON
> <christophe.l...@foss.st.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 29/06/2021 12:46, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> > > On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 at 14:48, Christophe LYON
> > > <christophe.l...@foss.st.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On 28/06/2021 10:40, Kyrylo Tkachov via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > >>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>> From: Prathamesh Kulkarni <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org>
> > >>>> Sent: 28 June 2021 09:38
> > >>>> To: Kyrylo Tkachov <kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com>
> > >>>> Cc: Christophe Lyon <christophe.l...@linaro.org>; gcc Patches <gcc-
> > >>>> patc...@gcc.gnu.org>
> > >>>> Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector
> > >>>> constructor
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 22:01, Kyrylo Tkachov <kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>>>> From: Prathamesh Kulkarni <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org>
> > >>>>>> Sent: 14 June 2021 09:02
> > >>>>>> To: Christophe Lyon <christophe.l...@linaro.org>
> > >>>>>> Cc: gcc Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Kyrylo Tkachov
> > >>>>>> <kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com>
> > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [ARM] PR98435: Missed optimization in expanding vector
> > >>>>>> constructor
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 at 15:58, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > >>>>>> <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 13:15, Christophe Lyon
> > >>>> <christophe.l...@linaro.org>
> > >>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 09:27, Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches
> > >>>>>>>> <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > >>>>>>>>> As mentioned in PR, for the following test-case:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> #include <arm_neon.h>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> bfloat16x4_t f1 (bfloat16_t a)
> > >>>>>>>>> {
> > >>>>>>>>> return vdup_n_bf16 (a);
> > >>>>>>>>> }
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> bfloat16x4_t f2 (bfloat16_t a)
> > >>>>>>>>> {
> > >>>>>>>>> return (bfloat16x4_t) {a, a, a, a};
> > >>>>>>>>> }
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Compiling with arm-linux-gnueabi -O3 -mfpu=neon -mfloat-
> > >>>> abi=softfp
> > >>>>>>>>> -march=armv8.2-a+bf16+fp16 results in f2 not being vectorized:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> f1:
> > >>>>>>>>> vdup.16 d16, r0
> > >>>>>>>>> vmov r0, r1, d16 @ v4bf
> > >>>>>>>>> bx lr
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> f2:
> > >>>>>>>>> mov r3, r0 @ __bf16
> > >>>>>>>>> adr r1, .L4
> > >>>>>>>>> ldrd r0, [r1]
> > >>>>>>>>> mov r2, r3 @ __bf16
> > >>>>>>>>> mov ip, r3 @ __bf16
> > >>>>>>>>> bfi r1, r2, #0, #16
> > >>>>>>>>> bfi r0, ip, #0, #16
> > >>>>>>>>> bfi r1, r3, #16, #16
> > >>>>>>>>> bfi r0, r2, #16, #16
> > >>>>>>>>> bx lr
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> This seems to happen because vec_init pattern in neon.md has VDQ
> > >>>>>> mode
> > >>>>>>>>> iterator, which doesn't include V4BF. In attached patch, I changed
> > >>>>>>>>> mode
> > >>>>>>>>> to VDQX which seems to work for the test-case, and the compiler
> > >>>> now
> > >>>>>> generates:
> > >>>>>>>>> f2:
> > >>>>>>>>> vdup.16 d16, r0
> > >>>>>>>>> vmov r0, r1, d16 @ v4bf
> > >>>>>>>>> bx lr
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> However, the pattern is also gated on TARGET_HAVE_MVE and I am
> > >>>>>> not
> > >>>>>>>>> sure if either VDQ or VDQX are correct modes for MVE since MVE
> > >>>> has
> > >>>>>>>>> only 128-bit vectors ?
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I think patterns common to both Neon and MVE should be moved to
> > >>>>>>>> vec-common.md, I don't know why such patterns were left in
> > >>>> neon.md.
> > >>>>>>> Since we end up calling neon_expand_vector_init for both NEON and
> > >>>> MVE,
> > >>>>>>> I am not sure if we should separate the pattern ?
> > >>>>>>> Would it make sense to FAIL if the mode size isn't 16 bytes for MVE
> > >>>>>>> as
> > >>>>>>> in attached patch so
> > >>>>>>> it will call neon_expand_vector_init only for 128-bit vectors ?
> > >>>>>>> Altho hard-coding 16 in the pattern doesn't seem a good idea to me
> > >>>> either.
> > >>>>>> ping https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-June/572342.html
> > >>>>>> (attaching patch as text).
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>> --- a/gcc/config/arm/neon.md
> > >>>>> +++ b/gcc/config/arm/neon.md
> > >>>>> @@ -459,10 +459,12 @@
> > >>>>> )
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> (define_expand "vec_init<mode><V_elem_l>"
> > >>>>> - [(match_operand:VDQ 0 "s_register_operand")
> > >>>>> + [(match_operand:VDQX 0 "s_register_operand")
> > >>>>> (match_operand 1 "" "")]
> > >>>>> "TARGET_NEON || TARGET_HAVE_MVE"
> > >>>>> {
> > >>>>> + if (TARGET_HAVE_MVE && GET_MODE_SIZE (GET_MODE
> > >>>> (operands[0])) != 16)
> > >>>>> + FAIL;
> > >>>>> neon_expand_vector_init (operands[0], operands[1]);
> > >>>>> DONE;
> > >>>>> })
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I think we should move this to vec-common.md like Christophe said.
> > >>>>> Perhaps rather than making it FAIL for non-16 MVE sizes we just
> > >>>>> disable it in
> > >>>> the expander condition?
> > >>>>> "TARGET_NEON || (TARGET_HAVE_MVE && GET_MODE_SIZE (<
> > >>>> VDQ>mode) != 16)"
> > >>>> Is it OK to use <MODE>mode ? Because using <VDQ>mode resulted in lot
> > >>>> of build errors.
> > >>>> Also, I think the comparison should be inverted, ie, GET_MODE_SIZE
> > >>>> (<MODE>mode) == 16 since
> > >>>> we want to make the pattern pass if target is MVE and vector size is
> > >>>> 16 bytes ?
> > >>>> Do these changes in attached patch look OK ?
> > >>> Yes, you're right.
> > >>
> > >> Can't this be ARM_HAVE_<MODE>_ARITH like in most expanders in
> > >> vec-common.md?
> > >>
> > >> (maybe with a && !TARGET_REALLY_IWMMXT if needed)
> > > I wonder if this should be ARM_HAVE_<MODE>_LDST instead since we're
> > > initializing the vector ?
> >
> >
> > Well, it really depends on which modes you want to enable.
> >
> >
> > Looks like your move VDQ -> VDQ adds V4BF, V8BF and DI.
> >
> > Are they all OK for Neon?
> >
> > They are not OK for MVE.
> >
> > Ideally you could add testcases to cover to the supported and
> > unsupported modes for both Neon and MVE.\
> >
> > Before your patch, the expander is enabled for MVE for 64 bit modes
> > (V8QI, V4HI, V2SI): what happens in this case? Does the compiler crash
> > or is there something else preventing the match?
> Hi,
> Apparently there is VALID_MVE_MODE macro, so is it better to use:
> TARGET_NEON || (TARGET_HAVE_MVE && VALID_MVE_MODE(<MODE>mode))
> as in the attached patch ?
ping https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-July/574206.html
Thanks,
Prathamesh
>
> Thanks,
> Prathamesh
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> > Christophe
> >
> >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Prathamesh
> > >>
> > >> Christophe
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> Ok.
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>> Kyrill
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> Thanks,
> > >>>> Prathamesh
> > >>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>> Kyrill
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>>> Prathamesh
> > >>>>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>>>> Prathamesh
> > >>>>>>>> That being said, I suggest you look at other similar patterns in
> > >>>>>>>> vec-common.md, most of which are gated on
> > >>>>>>>> ARM_HAVE_<MODE>_ARITH
> > >>>>>>>> and possibly beware of issues with iwmmxt :-)
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Christophe
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>>>>>> Prathamesh
