> But combine doesn't run at -O0. So something is inconsistent. I
> certainly believe we need to avoid the mem->mem case, but that's
> independent of combine and affects all optimization levels.
This is an new bug when running all tests after fixing the combine bug.
I understand that maybe I should send a separate patch to fix the problem.
Maybe this problem was exposed after I changed the pattern. I will continue to
track it.
> I think we can simplify to just
> !(MEM_P (operands[0]) && MEM_P (operands[1])
> I would have expected those to be handled by the constraints rather than
> the pattern's condition.
Yeh, the condition of the V2 becomes much simpler after split.
------------------ Original ------------------
From:
"Jeff Law"
<gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>;
Date: Fri, Aug 11, 2023 11:57 PM
To: "Lehua
Ding"<lehua.d...@rivai.ai>;"gcc-patches"<gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>;
Cc: "juzhe.zhong"<juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai>;"rdapp.gcc"<rdapp....@gmail.com>;"kito.cheng"<kito.ch...@gmail.com>;"palmer"<pal...@rivosinc.com>;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Fix error combine of pred_mov pattern
On 8/8/23 21:54, Lehua Ding wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> > The pattern's operand 0 explicitly allows MEMs as do the
constraints.
> > So forcing the operand into a register just seems like
it's papering
> > over the real problem.
>
> The added of force_reg code is address the problem preduced after
> address the error combine.
> The more restrict condtion of the pattern forbidden mem->mem pattern
> which will
> produced in -O0. I think the implementation forgot to do this force_reg
> operation before
> when doing the intrinis expansion The reason this problem isn't exposed
> before is because
> the reload pass will converts mem->mem to mem->reg; reg->mem
based on
> the constraint.
So if the core issue if mem->mem, that is a common thing to avoid.
Basically in the expander you use a force_reg and then have a test like
!(MEM_P (op0) && MEM_P (op1)) in the define_insn's condition.
But the v1 had a much more complex condition. It looks like that got
cleaned up in the v2. So I'll need to look at that one more closely.
>
> > This comment doesn't make sense in conjuction with your earlier
details.
> > In particular combine doesn't run at -O0, so your earlier
comment that
> > combine creates the problem seems inconsistent with the comment
above.
>
> As the above says, the code addresses the problem which produced
> after addressing the combine problem.
But combine doesn't run at -O0. So something is inconsistent. I
certainly believe we need to avoid the mem->mem case, but that's
independent of combine and affects all optimization levels.
>
> > Umm, wow. I haven't thought deeply about this, but the
complexity of
> > that insn condition is a huge red flag that our operand
predicates
> > aren't correct for this pattern.
>
> This condition is large because the vsetvl info need (compare to scalar
> mov or *mov<mode>_whole pattern),
> but I think this condition is enough clear to understand. Let me explain
> briefly.
>
> (register_operand (operands[0], <MODE>mode)
&& MEM_P (operands[3]))
> || (MEM_P (operands[0]) &&
register_operand(operands[3], <MODE>mode))
>
> This two conditons mean allow mem->reg and reg->mem pattern.
I think we can simplify to just
!(MEM_P (operands[0]) && MEM_P (operands[1])
>
> (register_operand (operands[0], <MODE>mode)
&&
> satisfies_constraint_Wc1 (operands[1]))
>
> This condition mean the mask must be all trues for reg->reg_or_imm
> pattern since> reg->reg insn doen't support mask operand.
I would have expected those to be handled by the constraints rather than
the pattern's condition.
Jeff
