RE: [PATCH v1] Match: Support forms 7 and 8 for the unsigned .SAT_ADD
Thanks Richard for comments.
> we might want to consider such transform in match.pd, in this case this
> would allow to elide one of the patterns.
That makes much more sense to me, it is not good idea to have many patterns for
SAT_ADD,
will commit this first and have a try in another PATCH for this.
Pan
-Original Message-
From: Richard Biener
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2024 7:03 PM
To: Li, Pan2
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai; kito.ch...@gmail.com;
jeffreya...@gmail.com; rdapp@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] Match: Support forms 7 and 8 for the unsigned .SAT_ADD
On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 3:41 AM wrote:
>
> From: Pan Li
>
> When investigate the vectorization of .SAT_ADD, we notice there
> are additional 2 forms, aka form 7 and 8 for .SAT_ADD.
>
> Form 7:
> #define DEF_SAT_U_ADD_FMT_7(T) \
> T __attribute__((noinline)) \
> sat_u_add_##T##_fmt_7 (T x, T y)\
> { \
> return x > (T)(x + y) ? -1 : (x + y); \
> }
>
> Form 8:
> #define DEF_SAT_U_ADD_FMT_8(T) \
> T __attribute__((noinline)) \
> sat_u_add_##T##_fmt_8 (T x, T y) \
> {\
> return x <= (T)(x + y) ? (x + y) : -1; \
> }
>
> Thus, add above 2 forms to the match gimple_unsigned_integer_sat_add,
> and then the vectorizer can try to recog the pattern like form 7 and
> form 8.
>
> The below test suites are passed for this patch:
> 1. The rv64gcv fully regression test with newlib.
> 2. The rv64gcv build with glibc.
> 3. The x86 bootstrap test.
> 4. The x86 fully regression test.
OK.
Note that fold-const.cc has canonicalization for the minus one to be put last:
/* If the second operand is simpler than the third, swap them
since that produces better jump optimization results. */
if (truth_value_p (TREE_CODE (arg0))
&& tree_swap_operands_p (op1, op2))
{
location_t loc0 = expr_location_or (arg0, loc);
/* See if this can be inverted. If it can't, possibly because
it was a floating-point inequality comparison, don't do
anything. */
tem = fold_invert_truthvalue (loc0, arg0);
if (tem)
return fold_build3_loc (loc, code, type, tem, op2, op1);
we might want to consider such transform in match.pd, in this case this
would allow to elide one of the patterns.
Richard.
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> * match.pd: Add form 7 and 8 for the unsigned .SAT_ADD match.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pan Li
> ---
> gcc/match.pd | 10 ++
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/match.pd b/gcc/match.pd
> index 99968d316ed..aae6d30a5e4 100644
> --- a/gcc/match.pd
> +++ b/gcc/match.pd
> @@ -3144,6 +3144,16 @@ DEFINE_INT_AND_FLOAT_ROUND_FN (RINT)
> (cond^ (ne (imagpart (IFN_ADD_OVERFLOW:c @0 @1)) integer_zerop)
>integer_minus_onep (usadd_left_part_2 @0 @1)))
>
> +/* Unsigned saturation add, case 7 (branch with le):
> + SAT_ADD = x <= (X + Y) ? (X + Y) : -1. */
> +(match (unsigned_integer_sat_add @0 @1)
> + (cond^ (le @0 (usadd_left_part_1@2 @0 @1)) @2 integer_minus_onep))
> +
> +/* Unsigned saturation add, case 8 (branch with gt):
> + SAT_ADD = x > (X + Y) ? -1 : (X + Y). */
> +(match (unsigned_integer_sat_add @0 @1)
> + (cond^ (gt @0 (usadd_left_part_1@2 @0 @1)) integer_minus_onep @2))
> +
> /* Unsigned saturation sub, case 1 (branch with gt):
> SAT_U_SUB = X > Y ? X - Y : 0 */
> (match (unsigned_integer_sat_sub @0 @1)
> --
> 2.34.1
>
Re: [PATCH v1] Match: Support forms 7 and 8 for the unsigned .SAT_ADD
On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 3:41 AM wrote:
>
> From: Pan Li
>
> When investigate the vectorization of .SAT_ADD, we notice there
> are additional 2 forms, aka form 7 and 8 for .SAT_ADD.
>
> Form 7:
> #define DEF_SAT_U_ADD_FMT_7(T) \
> T __attribute__((noinline)) \
> sat_u_add_##T##_fmt_7 (T x, T y)\
> { \
> return x > (T)(x + y) ? -1 : (x + y); \
> }
>
> Form 8:
> #define DEF_SAT_U_ADD_FMT_8(T) \
> T __attribute__((noinline)) \
> sat_u_add_##T##_fmt_8 (T x, T y) \
> {\
> return x <= (T)(x + y) ? (x + y) : -1; \
> }
>
> Thus, add above 2 forms to the match gimple_unsigned_integer_sat_add,
> and then the vectorizer can try to recog the pattern like form 7 and
> form 8.
>
> The below test suites are passed for this patch:
> 1. The rv64gcv fully regression test with newlib.
> 2. The rv64gcv build with glibc.
> 3. The x86 bootstrap test.
> 4. The x86 fully regression test.
OK.
Note that fold-const.cc has canonicalization for the minus one to be put last:
/* If the second operand is simpler than the third, swap them
since that produces better jump optimization results. */
if (truth_value_p (TREE_CODE (arg0))
&& tree_swap_operands_p (op1, op2))
{
location_t loc0 = expr_location_or (arg0, loc);
/* See if this can be inverted. If it can't, possibly because
it was a floating-point inequality comparison, don't do
anything. */
tem = fold_invert_truthvalue (loc0, arg0);
if (tem)
return fold_build3_loc (loc, code, type, tem, op2, op1);
we might want to consider such transform in match.pd, in this case this
would allow to elide one of the patterns.
Richard.
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> * match.pd: Add form 7 and 8 for the unsigned .SAT_ADD match.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pan Li
> ---
> gcc/match.pd | 10 ++
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/match.pd b/gcc/match.pd
> index 99968d316ed..aae6d30a5e4 100644
> --- a/gcc/match.pd
> +++ b/gcc/match.pd
> @@ -3144,6 +3144,16 @@ DEFINE_INT_AND_FLOAT_ROUND_FN (RINT)
> (cond^ (ne (imagpart (IFN_ADD_OVERFLOW:c @0 @1)) integer_zerop)
>integer_minus_onep (usadd_left_part_2 @0 @1)))
>
> +/* Unsigned saturation add, case 7 (branch with le):
> + SAT_ADD = x <= (X + Y) ? (X + Y) : -1. */
> +(match (unsigned_integer_sat_add @0 @1)
> + (cond^ (le @0 (usadd_left_part_1@2 @0 @1)) @2 integer_minus_onep))
> +
> +/* Unsigned saturation add, case 8 (branch with gt):
> + SAT_ADD = x > (X + Y) ? -1 : (X + Y). */
> +(match (unsigned_integer_sat_add @0 @1)
> + (cond^ (gt @0 (usadd_left_part_1@2 @0 @1)) integer_minus_onep @2))
> +
> /* Unsigned saturation sub, case 1 (branch with gt):
> SAT_U_SUB = X > Y ? X - Y : 0 */
> (match (unsigned_integer_sat_sub @0 @1)
> --
> 2.34.1
>
[PATCH v1] Match: Support forms 7 and 8 for the unsigned .SAT_ADD
From: Pan Li
When investigate the vectorization of .SAT_ADD, we notice there
are additional 2 forms, aka form 7 and 8 for .SAT_ADD.
Form 7:
#define DEF_SAT_U_ADD_FMT_7(T) \
T __attribute__((noinline)) \
sat_u_add_##T##_fmt_7 (T x, T y)\
{ \
return x > (T)(x + y) ? -1 : (x + y); \
}
Form 8:
#define DEF_SAT_U_ADD_FMT_8(T) \
T __attribute__((noinline)) \
sat_u_add_##T##_fmt_8 (T x, T y) \
{\
return x <= (T)(x + y) ? (x + y) : -1; \
}
Thus, add above 2 forms to the match gimple_unsigned_integer_sat_add,
and then the vectorizer can try to recog the pattern like form 7 and
form 8.
The below test suites are passed for this patch:
1. The rv64gcv fully regression test with newlib.
2. The rv64gcv build with glibc.
3. The x86 bootstrap test.
4. The x86 fully regression test.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* match.pd: Add form 7 and 8 for the unsigned .SAT_ADD match.
Signed-off-by: Pan Li
---
gcc/match.pd | 10 ++
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
diff --git a/gcc/match.pd b/gcc/match.pd
index 99968d316ed..aae6d30a5e4 100644
--- a/gcc/match.pd
+++ b/gcc/match.pd
@@ -3144,6 +3144,16 @@ DEFINE_INT_AND_FLOAT_ROUND_FN (RINT)
(cond^ (ne (imagpart (IFN_ADD_OVERFLOW:c @0 @1)) integer_zerop)
integer_minus_onep (usadd_left_part_2 @0 @1)))
+/* Unsigned saturation add, case 7 (branch with le):
+ SAT_ADD = x <= (X + Y) ? (X + Y) : -1. */
+(match (unsigned_integer_sat_add @0 @1)
+ (cond^ (le @0 (usadd_left_part_1@2 @0 @1)) @2 integer_minus_onep))
+
+/* Unsigned saturation add, case 8 (branch with gt):
+ SAT_ADD = x > (X + Y) ? -1 : (X + Y). */
+(match (unsigned_integer_sat_add @0 @1)
+ (cond^ (gt @0 (usadd_left_part_1@2 @0 @1)) integer_minus_onep @2))
+
/* Unsigned saturation sub, case 1 (branch with gt):
SAT_U_SUB = X > Y ? X - Y : 0 */
(match (unsigned_integer_sat_sub @0 @1)
--
2.34.1
