No, I don't think so. Some testcases the reason I added -fno-vect-cost-model
here is
because we don't have enough patterns to enable some auto-vectorizations.
I add -fno-vect-cost-model to force enable auto-vectorizations for such cases
for testing.
juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
From: Kito Cheng
Date: 2023-05-09 22:36
To: juzhe.zhong
CC: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; pal...@dabbelt.com; jeffreya...@gmail.com;
rdapp....@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] RISC-V: Fix incorrect implementation of
TARGET_VECTORIZE_SUPPORT_VECTOR_MISALIGNMENT
One more question from me: should we just add -fno-vect-cost-model to
AUTOVEC_TEST_OPTS?
On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 10:29 PM Kito Cheng <kito.ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Oh, checked default_builtin_support_vector_misalignment and I realized
> we can just remove riscv_support_vector_misalignment at all...
>
>
> On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 10:18 PM juzhe.zhong <juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai> wrote:
> >
> > riscv_support_vector_misalignment update makes some of the testcase check
> > fail. I have checked the those fails， they are reasonable. So I include
> > test case adapt in this patch.
> > ---- Replied Message ----
> > FromKito Cheng<kito.ch...@gmail.com>
> > Date05/09/2023 21:54
> > tojuzhe.zh...@rivai.ai<juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai>
> > ccgcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org<gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
> > pal...@dabbelt.com<pal...@dabbelt.com>,
> > jeffreya...@gmail.com<jeffreya...@gmail.com>,
> > rdapp....@gmail.com<rdapp....@gmail.com>
> > SubjectRe: [PATCH V2] RISC-V: Fix incorrect implementation of
> > TARGET_VECTORIZE_SUPPORT_VECTOR_MISALIGNMENT
> > I am ok with both changes but I tried to build some test cases, and it
> > seems the changes are caused by options update, not caused by the
> > riscv_support_vector_misalignment update? so I would like to see the
> > testcase should split out into a separated patch.
> >
> > > +/* Return true if the vector misalignment factor is supported by the
> > > + target. */
> > > bool
> > > riscv_support_vector_misalignment (machine_mode mode,
> > > const_tree type ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
> > > int misalignment,
> > > bool is_packed ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED)
> > > {
> > > - if (TARGET_VECTOR)
> > > - {
> > > - if (STRICT_ALIGNMENT)
> > > - {
> > > - /* Return if movmisalign pattern is not supported for this
> > > mode. */
> > > - if (optab_handler (movmisalign_optab, mode) == CODE_FOR_nothing)
> > > - return false;
> > > -
> > > - /* Misalignment factor is unknown at compile time. */
> > > - if (misalignment == -1)
> > > - return false;
> > > - }
> > > - return true;
> > > - }
> > > + /* TODO: For RVV scalable vector auto-vectorization, we should allow
> > > + movmisalign<mode> pattern to handle misalign data movement to
> > > unblock
> > > + possible auto-vectorization.
> > >
> > > + RVV VLS auto-vectorization or SIMD auto-vectorization can be
> > > supported here
> > > + in the future. */
> > > return default_builtin_support_vector_misalignment (mode, type,
> > > misalignment,
> > > is_packed);
> > > }
> >
> > Should we have some corresponding change on autovec.md like this?
> >
> > diff --git a/gcc/config/riscv/autovec.md b/gcc/config/riscv/autovec.md
> > index f1c5ff5951bf..c2873201d82e 100644
> > --- a/gcc/config/riscv/autovec.md
> > +++ b/gcc/config/riscv/autovec.md
> > @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@
> > (define_expand "movmisalign<mode>"
> > [(set (match_operand:V 0 "nonimmediate_operand")
> > (match_operand:V 1 "general_operand"))]
> > - "TARGET_VECTOR"
> > + "TARGET_VECTOR && !STRICT_ALIGNMENT"
> > {
> > /* Equivalent to a normal move for our purpooses. */
> > emit_move_insn (operands[0], operands[1]);
