Re: [PATCH] Better const_vector printing
Richard Biener writes: > On April 14, 2021 5:10:26 PM GMT+02:00, Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches > wrote: >>Looking at PR99929 showed that we weren't dumping enough information >>about variable-length CONST_VECTORs. Something like: >> >> (const_vector:VNx4SI [(const_int 1) (const_int 0)]) >> >>could be either: >> >>(a) 1, 0, 1, 0, repeating >>(b) 1 followed by all zeros >> >>This patch adds more information to the dumps. There are four cases: >> >>(a) above: >> >>(const_vector:VNx4SI repeat [ >> (const_int 1) >> (const_int 0) >>]) >> >>(b) above: >> >>(const_vector:VNx4SI [ >> (const_int 1) >> repeat [ >>(const_int 0) >> ] >>]) >> >>a single stepped sequence: >> >>(const_vector:VNx4SI [ >> (const_int 0) >> stepped [ >>(const_int 1) >>(const_int 2) >> ] >>]) >> >>interleaved stepped sequences: >> >>(const_vector:VNx4SI [ >> (const_int 0) >> (const_int 40) >> stepped (interleave 2) [ >>(const_int 1) >>(const_int 41) >>(const_int 2) >>(const_int 42) >> ] >>]) >> >>There are probably better syntaxes, but hopefully this is at least >>an improvement on the status quo. >> >>Tested on aarch64-linux-gnu, arm-linux-gnueabihf, armeb-eabi >>and x86_64-linux-gnu. OK to install now, or should it wait >>until GCC 12? (It only affects SVE in practice.) > > Ok now (it should be harmless, no?) Yeah, I hope so :-) Thanks, Richard
Re: [PATCH] Better const_vector printing
On April 14, 2021 5:10:26 PM GMT+02:00, Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>Looking at PR99929 showed that we weren't dumping enough information
>about variable-length CONST_VECTORs. Something like:
>
> (const_vector:VNx4SI [(const_int 1) (const_int 0)])
>
>could be either:
>
>(a) 1, 0, 1, 0, repeating
>(b) 1 followed by all zeros
>
>This patch adds more information to the dumps. There are four cases:
>
>(a) above:
>
>(const_vector:VNx4SI repeat [
> (const_int 1)
> (const_int 0)
>])
>
>(b) above:
>
>(const_vector:VNx4SI [
> (const_int 1)
> repeat [
>(const_int 0)
> ]
>])
>
>a single stepped sequence:
>
>(const_vector:VNx4SI [
> (const_int 0)
> stepped [
>(const_int 1)
>(const_int 2)
> ]
>])
>
>interleaved stepped sequences:
>
>(const_vector:VNx4SI [
> (const_int 0)
> (const_int 40)
> stepped (interleave 2) [
>(const_int 1)
>(const_int 41)
>(const_int 2)
>(const_int 42)
> ]
>])
>
>There are probably better syntaxes, but hopefully this is at least
>an improvement on the status quo.
>
>Tested on aarch64-linux-gnu, arm-linux-gnueabihf, armeb-eabi
>and x86_64-linux-gnu. OK to install now, or should it wait
>until GCC 12? (It only affects SVE in practice.)
Ok now (it should be harmless, no?)
Thanks,
Richard.
>Richard
>
>
>gcc/
> * print-rtl.c (rtx_writer::print_rtx_operand_codes_E_and_V): Print
> more information about variable-length CONST_VECTORs.
>---
> gcc/print-rtl.c | 32 +++-
> 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
>diff --git a/gcc/print-rtl.c b/gcc/print-rtl.c
>index c7982bce507..081fc50fab8 100644
>--- a/gcc/print-rtl.c
>+++ b/gcc/print-rtl.c
>@@ -370,6 +370,10 @@ rtx_writer::print_rtx_operand_codes_E_and_V
>(const_rtx in_rtx, int idx)
> print_rtx_head, m_indent * 2, "");
> m_sawclose = 0;
> }
>+ if (GET_CODE (in_rtx) == CONST_VECTOR
>+ && !GET_MODE_NUNITS (GET_MODE (in_rtx)).is_constant ()
>+ && CONST_VECTOR_DUPLICATE_P (in_rtx))
>+fprintf (m_outfile, " repeat");
> fputs (" [", m_outfile);
> if (XVEC (in_rtx, idx) != NULL)
> {
>@@ -377,12 +381,32 @@ rtx_writer::print_rtx_operand_codes_E_and_V
>(const_rtx in_rtx, int idx)
> if (XVECLEN (in_rtx, idx))
> m_sawclose = 1;
>
>+ int barrier = XVECLEN (in_rtx, idx);
>+ if (GET_CODE (in_rtx) == CONST_VECTOR
>+&& !GET_MODE_NUNITS (GET_MODE (in_rtx)).is_constant ())
>+ barrier = CONST_VECTOR_NPATTERNS (in_rtx);
>+
> for (int j = 0; j < XVECLEN (in_rtx, idx); j++)
> {
> int j1;
>
>+if (j == barrier)
>+ {
>+fprintf (m_outfile, "\n%s%*s",
>+ print_rtx_head, m_indent * 2, "");
>+if (!CONST_VECTOR_STEPPED_P (in_rtx))
>+ fprintf (m_outfile, "repeat [");
>+else if (CONST_VECTOR_NPATTERNS (in_rtx) == 1)
>+ fprintf (m_outfile, "stepped [");
>+else
>+ fprintf (m_outfile, "stepped (interleave %d) [",
>+ CONST_VECTOR_NPATTERNS (in_rtx));
>+m_indent += 2;
>+ }
>+
> print_rtx (XVECEXP (in_rtx, idx, j));
>-for (j1 = j + 1; j1 < XVECLEN (in_rtx, idx); j1++)
>+int limit = MIN (barrier, XVECLEN (in_rtx, idx));
>+for (j1 = j + 1; j1 < limit; j1++)
> if (XVECEXP (in_rtx, idx, j) != XVECEXP (in_rtx, idx, j1))
> break;
>
>@@ -393,6 +417,12 @@ rtx_writer::print_rtx_operand_codes_E_and_V
>(const_rtx in_rtx, int idx)
> }
> }
>
>+ if (barrier < XVECLEN (in_rtx, idx))
>+ {
>+m_indent -= 2;
>+fprintf (m_outfile, "\n%s%*s]", print_rtx_head, m_indent * 2, "");
>+ }
>+
> m_indent -= 2;
> }
> if (m_sawclose)
[PATCH] Better const_vector printing
Looking at PR99929 showed that we weren't dumping enough information
about variable-length CONST_VECTORs. Something like:
(const_vector:VNx4SI [(const_int 1) (const_int 0)])
could be either:
(a) 1, 0, 1, 0, repeating
(b) 1 followed by all zeros
This patch adds more information to the dumps. There are four cases:
(a) above:
(const_vector:VNx4SI repeat [
(const_int 1)
(const_int 0)
])
(b) above:
(const_vector:VNx4SI [
(const_int 1)
repeat [
(const_int 0)
]
])
a single stepped sequence:
(const_vector:VNx4SI [
(const_int 0)
stepped [
(const_int 1)
(const_int 2)
]
])
interleaved stepped sequences:
(const_vector:VNx4SI [
(const_int 0)
(const_int 40)
stepped (interleave 2) [
(const_int 1)
(const_int 41)
(const_int 2)
(const_int 42)
]
])
There are probably better syntaxes, but hopefully this is at least
an improvement on the status quo.
Tested on aarch64-linux-gnu, arm-linux-gnueabihf, armeb-eabi
and x86_64-linux-gnu. OK to install now, or should it wait
until GCC 12? (It only affects SVE in practice.)
Richard
gcc/
* print-rtl.c (rtx_writer::print_rtx_operand_codes_E_and_V): Print
more information about variable-length CONST_VECTORs.
---
gcc/print-rtl.c | 32 +++-
1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/gcc/print-rtl.c b/gcc/print-rtl.c
index c7982bce507..081fc50fab8 100644
--- a/gcc/print-rtl.c
+++ b/gcc/print-rtl.c
@@ -370,6 +370,10 @@ rtx_writer::print_rtx_operand_codes_E_and_V (const_rtx
in_rtx, int idx)
print_rtx_head, m_indent * 2, "");
m_sawclose = 0;
}
+ if (GET_CODE (in_rtx) == CONST_VECTOR
+ && !GET_MODE_NUNITS (GET_MODE (in_rtx)).is_constant ()
+ && CONST_VECTOR_DUPLICATE_P (in_rtx))
+fprintf (m_outfile, " repeat");
fputs (" [", m_outfile);
if (XVEC (in_rtx, idx) != NULL)
{
@@ -377,12 +381,32 @@ rtx_writer::print_rtx_operand_codes_E_and_V (const_rtx
in_rtx, int idx)
if (XVECLEN (in_rtx, idx))
m_sawclose = 1;
+ int barrier = XVECLEN (in_rtx, idx);
+ if (GET_CODE (in_rtx) == CONST_VECTOR
+ && !GET_MODE_NUNITS (GET_MODE (in_rtx)).is_constant ())
+ barrier = CONST_VECTOR_NPATTERNS (in_rtx);
+
for (int j = 0; j < XVECLEN (in_rtx, idx); j++)
{
int j1;
+ if (j == barrier)
+ {
+ fprintf (m_outfile, "\n%s%*s",
+ print_rtx_head, m_indent * 2, "");
+ if (!CONST_VECTOR_STEPPED_P (in_rtx))
+ fprintf (m_outfile, "repeat [");
+ else if (CONST_VECTOR_NPATTERNS (in_rtx) == 1)
+ fprintf (m_outfile, "stepped [");
+ else
+ fprintf (m_outfile, "stepped (interleave %d) [",
+CONST_VECTOR_NPATTERNS (in_rtx));
+ m_indent += 2;
+ }
+
print_rtx (XVECEXP (in_rtx, idx, j));
- for (j1 = j + 1; j1 < XVECLEN (in_rtx, idx); j1++)
+ int limit = MIN (barrier, XVECLEN (in_rtx, idx));
+ for (j1 = j + 1; j1 < limit; j1++)
if (XVECEXP (in_rtx, idx, j) != XVECEXP (in_rtx, idx, j1))
break;
@@ -393,6 +417,12 @@ rtx_writer::print_rtx_operand_codes_E_and_V (const_rtx
in_rtx, int idx)
}
}
+ if (barrier < XVECLEN (in_rtx, idx))
+ {
+ m_indent -= 2;
+ fprintf (m_outfile, "\n%s%*s]", print_rtx_head, m_indent * 2, "");
+ }
+
m_indent -= 2;
}
if (m_sawclose)
--
2.17.1
