On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 11:40 AM Richard Sandiford
<richard.sandif...@arm.com> wrote:
>
> Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 10:53 AM Kewen.Lin <li...@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> When I added the support for Power10 newly introduced multiply
> >> highpart instrutions, I noticed that currently vectorizer
> >> doesn't try to vectorize multiply highpart pattern, I hope
> >> this isn't intentional?
> >>
> >> This patch is to extend the existing pattern mulhs handlings
> >> to cover multiply highpart. Another alternative seems to
> >> recog mul_highpart operation in a general place applied for
> >> scalar code when the target supports the optab for the scalar
> >> operation, it's based on the assumption that one target which
> >> supports vector version of multiply highpart should have the
> >> scalar version. I noticed that the function can_mult_highpart_p
> >> can check/handle mult_highpart well even without mul_highpart
> >> optab support, I think to recog this pattern in vectorizer
> >> is better. Is it on the right track?
> >
> > I think it's on the right track, using IFN_LAST is a bit awkward
> > in case yet another case pops up so maybe you can use
> > a code_helper instance instead which unifies tree_code,
> > builtin_code and internal_fn?
> >
> > I also notice that can_mult_highpart_p will return true if
> > only vec_widen_[us]mult_{even,odd,hi,lo} are available,
> > but then the result might be less optimal (or even not
> > handled later)?
> >
> > That is, what about adding optab internal functions
> > for [us]mul_highpart instead, much like the existing
> > ones for MULH{R,}S?
>
> Yeah, that's be my preference too FWIW. All uses of MULT_HIGHPART_EXPR
> already have to be guarded by can_mult_highpart_p, so replacing it with
> a directly-mapped ifn seems like a natural fit. (Then can_mult_highpart_p
> should be replaced with a direct_internal_fn_supported_p query.)
But note can_mult_highpart_t covers use via vec_widen_[us]mult_{even,odd,hi,lo}
but I think this specific pattern should key on [us]mul_highpart only?
Because vec_widen_* implies a higher VF (or else we might miss vectorizing?)?
Richard.
> Thanks,
> Richard
