Re: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Support CALL vectorization for COND_LEN_*
Hi, Richi.
I have fully tested in RISC-V port with adding gcc_unreachable () in V4 patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-August/626133.html
Bootstrap and regression on X86 passed.
juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
From: Richard Biener
Date: 2023-08-02 16:33
To: juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
CC: richard.sandiford; gcc-patches
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Support CALL vectorization for COND_LEN_*
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
> Thanks Richard so much.
>
> Forgive me asking question again :)
>
> Is this following code correct for you ?
Well, I wonder what kind of testcase runs into the reduc_idx >= 0 case.
The point is I don't _know_ whether the code is correct, in fact it looked
suspicious ;)
> + if (len_loop_p)
> +{
> + if (len_opno >= 0)
> + {
> + ifn = cond_len_fn;
> + /* COND_* -> COND_LEN_* takes 2 extra arguments:LEN,BIAS. */
> + vect_nargs += 2;
> + }
> + else if (reduc_idx >= 0)
> + gcc_unreachable ();
> +}
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
>
> From: Richard Biener
> Date: 2023-08-02 15:49
> To: ???
> CC: richard.sandiford; gcc-patches
> Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Support CALL vectorization for COND_LEN_*
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2023, ??? wrote:
>
> > Oh, Thanks a lot.
> > I can test it in RISC-V backend now.
> >
> > But I have another questions:
> > >> I'm a bit confused (but also by the existing mask code), whether
> > >>vect_nargs needs adjustment depends on the IFN in the IL we analyze.
> > >>If if-conversion recognizes a .COND_ADD then we need to add nothing
> > >>for masking (that is, ifn == cond_fn already). In your code above
> > >>you either use cond_len_fn or get_len_internal_fn (cond_fn) but
> > >>isn't that the very same?! So how come you in one case add two
> > >>and in the other add four args?
> > >>Please make sure to place gcc_unreachable () in each arm and check
> > >>you have test coverage. I believe that the else arm is unreachable
> > >>but when you vectorize .FMA you will need to add 4 and when you
> > >>vectorize .COND_FMA you will need to add two arguments (as said,
> > >>no idea why we special case reduc_idx >= 0 at the moment).
> >
> > Do you mean I add gcc_unreachable in else like this:
> >
> > if (len_loop_p)
> > {
> > if (len_opno >= 0)
> > {
> > ifn = cond_len_fn;
> > /* COND_* -> COND_LEN_* takes 2 extra arguments:LEN,BIAS. */
> > vect_nargs += 2;
> > }
> > else if (reduc_idx >= 0)
> > {
> > /* FMA -> COND_LEN_FMA takes 4 extra
> > arguments:MASK,ELSE,LEN,BIAS. */
> > ifn = get_len_internal_fn (cond_fn);
> > vect_nargs += 4;
>
> no, a gcc_unreachable () here. That is, make sure you have test coverage
> for the above two cases (to me the len_opno >= 0 case is obvious)
>
> > }
> > else
> > gcc_unreachable ();
> > }
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> > juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
> >
> > From: Richard Biener
> > Date: 2023-07-31 21:58
> > To: ???
> > CC: richard.sandiford; gcc-patches
> > Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Support CALL vectorization for COND_LEN_*
> > On Mon, 31 Jul 2023, ??? wrote:
> >
> > > Yeah. I have tried this case too.
> > >
> > > But this case doesn't need to be vectorized as COND_FMA, am I right?
> >
> > Only when you enable loop masking. Alternatively use
> >
> > double foo (double *a, double *b, double *c)
> > {
> > double result = 0.0;
> > for (int i = 0; i < 1024; ++i)
> > result += i & 1 ? __builtin_fma (a[i], b[i], c[i]) : 0.0;
> > return result;
> > }
> >
> > but then for me if-conversion produces
> >
> > iftmp.0_18 = __builtin_fma (_8, _10, _5);
> > _ifc__43 = _26 ? iftmp.0_18 : 0.0;
> >
> > with -ffast-math (probably rightfully so). I then get .FMAs
> > vectorized and .COND_FMA folded.
> >
> > > The thing I wonder is that whether this condtion:
> > >
> > > if (mask_opno >= 0 && reduc_idx >= 0)
> > >
> > > or similar as len
> > > if (len_opno >= 0 && reduc_idx >= 0)
> > >
> > > Whether they are redundant in vectorizable_call ?
> > >
> > >
> > > juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
> > >
> > > From: Richard Biener
> > > Date: 2023-0
Re: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Support CALL vectorization for COND_LEN_*
Yes. I also suspect whether we can run into reduc_idx >= 0.
I will add gcc_unreachable () and add fully testcase for it.
After I have fully tested in RISC-V port then send V4.
Thank you so much.
juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
From: Richard Biener
Date: 2023-08-02 16:33
To: juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
CC: richard.sandiford; gcc-patches
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Support CALL vectorization for COND_LEN_*
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
> Thanks Richard so much.
>
> Forgive me asking question again :)
>
> Is this following code correct for you ?
Well, I wonder what kind of testcase runs into the reduc_idx >= 0 case.
The point is I don't _know_ whether the code is correct, in fact it looked
suspicious ;)
> + if (len_loop_p)
> +{
> + if (len_opno >= 0)
> + {
> + ifn = cond_len_fn;
> + /* COND_* -> COND_LEN_* takes 2 extra arguments:LEN,BIAS. */
> + vect_nargs += 2;
> + }
> + else if (reduc_idx >= 0)
> + gcc_unreachable ();
> +}
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
>
> From: Richard Biener
> Date: 2023-08-02 15:49
> To: ???
> CC: richard.sandiford; gcc-patches
> Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Support CALL vectorization for COND_LEN_*
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2023, ??? wrote:
>
> > Oh, Thanks a lot.
> > I can test it in RISC-V backend now.
> >
> > But I have another questions:
> > >> I'm a bit confused (but also by the existing mask code), whether
> > >>vect_nargs needs adjustment depends on the IFN in the IL we analyze.
> > >>If if-conversion recognizes a .COND_ADD then we need to add nothing
> > >>for masking (that is, ifn == cond_fn already). In your code above
> > >>you either use cond_len_fn or get_len_internal_fn (cond_fn) but
> > >>isn't that the very same?! So how come you in one case add two
> > >>and in the other add four args?
> > >>Please make sure to place gcc_unreachable () in each arm and check
> > >>you have test coverage. I believe that the else arm is unreachable
> > >>but when you vectorize .FMA you will need to add 4 and when you
> > >>vectorize .COND_FMA you will need to add two arguments (as said,
> > >>no idea why we special case reduc_idx >= 0 at the moment).
> >
> > Do you mean I add gcc_unreachable in else like this:
> >
> > if (len_loop_p)
> > {
> > if (len_opno >= 0)
> > {
> > ifn = cond_len_fn;
> > /* COND_* -> COND_LEN_* takes 2 extra arguments:LEN,BIAS. */
> > vect_nargs += 2;
> > }
> > else if (reduc_idx >= 0)
> > {
> > /* FMA -> COND_LEN_FMA takes 4 extra
> > arguments:MASK,ELSE,LEN,BIAS. */
> > ifn = get_len_internal_fn (cond_fn);
> > vect_nargs += 4;
>
> no, a gcc_unreachable () here. That is, make sure you have test coverage
> for the above two cases (to me the len_opno >= 0 case is obvious)
>
> > }
> > else
> > gcc_unreachable ();
> > }
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> > juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
> >
> > From: Richard Biener
> > Date: 2023-07-31 21:58
> > To: ???
> > CC: richard.sandiford; gcc-patches
> > Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Support CALL vectorization for COND_LEN_*
> > On Mon, 31 Jul 2023, ??? wrote:
> >
> > > Yeah. I have tried this case too.
> > >
> > > But this case doesn't need to be vectorized as COND_FMA, am I right?
> >
> > Only when you enable loop masking. Alternatively use
> >
> > double foo (double *a, double *b, double *c)
> > {
> > double result = 0.0;
> > for (int i = 0; i < 1024; ++i)
> > result += i & 1 ? __builtin_fma (a[i], b[i], c[i]) : 0.0;
> > return result;
> > }
> >
> > but then for me if-conversion produces
> >
> > iftmp.0_18 = __builtin_fma (_8, _10, _5);
> > _ifc__43 = _26 ? iftmp.0_18 : 0.0;
> >
> > with -ffast-math (probably rightfully so). I then get .FMAs
> > vectorized and .COND_FMA folded.
> >
> > > The thing I wonder is that whether this condtion:
> > >
> > > if (mask_opno >= 0 && reduc_idx >= 0)
> > >
> > > or similar as len
> > > if (len_opno >= 0 && reduc_idx >= 0)
> > >
> > > Whether they are redundant in vectorizable_call ?
> > >
> > >
> > > juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
> > >
> > > From: Richard Biener
> > > Date: 202
Re: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Support CALL vectorization for COND_LEN_*
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
> Thanks Richard so much.
>
> Forgive me asking question again :)
>
> Is this following code correct for you ?
Well, I wonder what kind of testcase runs into the reduc_idx >= 0 case.
The point is I don't _know_ whether the code is correct, in fact it looked
suspicious ;)
> + if (len_loop_p)
> +{
> + if (len_opno >= 0)
> + {
> + ifn = cond_len_fn;
> + /* COND_* -> COND_LEN_* takes 2 extra arguments:LEN,BIAS. */
> + vect_nargs += 2;
> + }
> + else if (reduc_idx >= 0)
> + gcc_unreachable ();
> +}
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
>
> From: Richard Biener
> Date: 2023-08-02 15:49
> To: ???
> CC: richard.sandiford; gcc-patches
> Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Support CALL vectorization for COND_LEN_*
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2023, ??? wrote:
>
> > Oh, Thanks a lot.
> > I can test it in RISC-V backend now.
> >
> > But I have another questions:
> > >> I'm a bit confused (but also by the existing mask code), whether
> > >>vect_nargs needs adjustment depends on the IFN in the IL we analyze.
> > >>If if-conversion recognizes a .COND_ADD then we need to add nothing
> > >>for masking (that is, ifn == cond_fn already). In your code above
> > >>you either use cond_len_fn or get_len_internal_fn (cond_fn) but
> > >>isn't that the very same?! So how come you in one case add two
> > >>and in the other add four args?
> > >>Please make sure to place gcc_unreachable () in each arm and check
> > >>you have test coverage. I believe that the else arm is unreachable
> > >>but when you vectorize .FMA you will need to add 4 and when you
> > >>vectorize .COND_FMA you will need to add two arguments (as said,
> > >>no idea why we special case reduc_idx >= 0 at the moment).
> >
> > Do you mean I add gcc_unreachable in else like this:
> >
> > if (len_loop_p)
> > {
> > if (len_opno >= 0)
> > {
> > ifn = cond_len_fn;
> > /* COND_* -> COND_LEN_* takes 2 extra arguments:LEN,BIAS. */
> > vect_nargs += 2;
> > }
> > else if (reduc_idx >= 0)
> > {
> > /* FMA -> COND_LEN_FMA takes 4 extra
> > arguments:MASK,ELSE,LEN,BIAS. */
> > ifn = get_len_internal_fn (cond_fn);
> > vect_nargs += 4;
>
> no, a gcc_unreachable () here. That is, make sure you have test coverage
> for the above two cases (to me the len_opno >= 0 case is obvious)
>
> > }
> > else
> > gcc_unreachable ();
> > }
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> > juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
> >
> > From: Richard Biener
> > Date: 2023-07-31 21:58
> > To: ???
> > CC: richard.sandiford; gcc-patches
> > Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Support CALL vectorization for COND_LEN_*
> > On Mon, 31 Jul 2023, ??? wrote:
> >
> > > Yeah. I have tried this case too.
> > >
> > > But this case doesn't need to be vectorized as COND_FMA, am I right?
> >
> > Only when you enable loop masking. Alternatively use
> >
> > double foo (double *a, double *b, double *c)
> > {
> > double result = 0.0;
> > for (int i = 0; i < 1024; ++i)
> > result += i & 1 ? __builtin_fma (a[i], b[i], c[i]) : 0.0;
> > return result;
> > }
> >
> > but then for me if-conversion produces
> >
> > iftmp.0_18 = __builtin_fma (_8, _10, _5);
> > _ifc__43 = _26 ? iftmp.0_18 : 0.0;
> >
> > with -ffast-math (probably rightfully so). I then get .FMAs
> > vectorized and .COND_FMA folded.
> >
> > > The thing I wonder is that whether this condtion:
> > >
> > > if (mask_opno >= 0 && reduc_idx >= 0)
> > >
> > > or similar as len
> > > if (len_opno >= 0 && reduc_idx >= 0)
> > >
> > > Whether they are redundant in vectorizable_call ?
> > >
> > >
> > > juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
> > >
> > > From: Richard Biener
> > > Date: 2023-07-31 21:33
> > > To: juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
> > > CC: richard.sandiford; gcc-patches
> > > Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Support CALL vectorization for
> > > COND_LEN_*
> > > On Mon, 31 Jul 2023, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi, Richi.
> > > >
> > > > >> I think you
Re: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Support CALL vectorization for COND_LEN_*
Thanks Richard so much.
Forgive me asking question again :)
Is this following code correct for you ?
+ if (len_loop_p)
+{
+ if (len_opno >= 0)
+ {
+ ifn = cond_len_fn;
+ /* COND_* -> COND_LEN_* takes 2 extra arguments:LEN,BIAS. */
+ vect_nargs += 2;
+ }
+ else if (reduc_idx >= 0)
+ gcc_unreachable ();
+}
Thanks.
juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
From: Richard Biener
Date: 2023-08-02 15:49
To: 钟居哲
CC: richard.sandiford; gcc-patches
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Support CALL vectorization for COND_LEN_*
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023, ??? wrote:
> Oh, Thanks a lot.
> I can test it in RISC-V backend now.
>
> But I have another questions:
> >> I'm a bit confused (but also by the existing mask code), whether
> >>vect_nargs needs adjustment depends on the IFN in the IL we analyze.
> >>If if-conversion recognizes a .COND_ADD then we need to add nothing
> >>for masking (that is, ifn == cond_fn already). In your code above
> >>you either use cond_len_fn or get_len_internal_fn (cond_fn) but
> >>isn't that the very same?! So how come you in one case add two
> >>and in the other add four args?
> >>Please make sure to place gcc_unreachable () in each arm and check
> >>you have test coverage. I believe that the else arm is unreachable
> >>but when you vectorize .FMA you will need to add 4 and when you
> >>vectorize .COND_FMA you will need to add two arguments (as said,
> >>no idea why we special case reduc_idx >= 0 at the moment).
>
> Do you mean I add gcc_unreachable in else like this:
>
> if (len_loop_p)
> {
> if (len_opno >= 0)
> {
> ifn = cond_len_fn;
> /* COND_* -> COND_LEN_* takes 2 extra arguments:LEN,BIAS. */
> vect_nargs += 2;
> }
> else if (reduc_idx >= 0)
> {
> /* FMA -> COND_LEN_FMA takes 4 extra arguments:MASK,ELSE,LEN,BIAS.
> */
> ifn = get_len_internal_fn (cond_fn);
> vect_nargs += 4;
no, a gcc_unreachable () here. That is, make sure you have test coverage
for the above two cases (to me the len_opno >= 0 case is obvious)
> }
> else
> gcc_unreachable ();
> }
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
>
> From: Richard Biener
> Date: 2023-07-31 21:58
> To: ???
> CC: richard.sandiford; gcc-patches
> Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Support CALL vectorization for COND_LEN_*
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2023, ??? wrote:
>
> > Yeah. I have tried this case too.
> >
> > But this case doesn't need to be vectorized as COND_FMA, am I right?
>
> Only when you enable loop masking. Alternatively use
>
> double foo (double *a, double *b, double *c)
> {
> double result = 0.0;
> for (int i = 0; i < 1024; ++i)
> result += i & 1 ? __builtin_fma (a[i], b[i], c[i]) : 0.0;
> return result;
> }
>
> but then for me if-conversion produces
>
> iftmp.0_18 = __builtin_fma (_8, _10, _5);
> _ifc__43 = _26 ? iftmp.0_18 : 0.0;
>
> with -ffast-math (probably rightfully so). I then get .FMAs
> vectorized and .COND_FMA folded.
>
> > The thing I wonder is that whether this condtion:
> >
> > if (mask_opno >= 0 && reduc_idx >= 0)
> >
> > or similar as len
> > if (len_opno >= 0 && reduc_idx >= 0)
> >
> > Whether they are redundant in vectorizable_call ?
> >
> >
> > juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
> >
> > From: Richard Biener
> > Date: 2023-07-31 21:33
> > To: juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
> > CC: richard.sandiford; gcc-patches
> > Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Support CALL vectorization for COND_LEN_*
> > On Mon, 31 Jul 2023, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
> >
> > > Hi, Richi.
> > >
> > > >> I think you need to use fma from math.h together with -ffast-math
> > > >>to get fma.
> > >
> > > As you said, this is one of the case I tried:
> > > https://godbolt.org/z/xMzrrv5dT
> > > GCC failed to vectorize.
> > >
> > > Could you help me with this?
> >
> > double foo (double *a, double *b, double *c)
> > {
> > double result = 0.0;
> > for (int i = 0; i < 1024; ++i)
> > result += __builtin_fma (a[i], b[i], c[i]);
> > return result;
> > }
> >
> > with -mavx2 -mfma -Ofast this is vectorized on x86_64 to
> >
> > ...
> > vect__9.13_27 = MEM [(double *)vectp_a.11_29];
> > _9 = *_8;
> > vect__10.14_26 = .FMA (vect__7.10_30, vect__9.13_27, v
Re: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Support CALL vectorization for COND_LEN_*
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023, ??? wrote:
> Oh, Thanks a lot.
> I can test it in RISC-V backend now.
>
> But I have another questions:
> >> I'm a bit confused (but also by the existing mask code), whether
> >>vect_nargs needs adjustment depends on the IFN in the IL we analyze.
> >>If if-conversion recognizes a .COND_ADD then we need to add nothing
> >>for masking (that is, ifn == cond_fn already). In your code above
> >>you either use cond_len_fn or get_len_internal_fn (cond_fn) but
> >>isn't that the very same?! So how come you in one case add two
> >>and in the other add four args?
> >>Please make sure to place gcc_unreachable () in each arm and check
> >>you have test coverage. I believe that the else arm is unreachable
> >>but when you vectorize .FMA you will need to add 4 and when you
> >>vectorize .COND_FMA you will need to add two arguments (as said,
> >>no idea why we special case reduc_idx >= 0 at the moment).
>
> Do you mean I add gcc_unreachable in else like this:
>
> if (len_loop_p)
> {
> if (len_opno >= 0)
> {
> ifn = cond_len_fn;
> /* COND_* -> COND_LEN_* takes 2 extra arguments:LEN,BIAS. */
> vect_nargs += 2;
> }
> else if (reduc_idx >= 0)
> {
> /* FMA -> COND_LEN_FMA takes 4 extra arguments:MASK,ELSE,LEN,BIAS.
> */
> ifn = get_len_internal_fn (cond_fn);
> vect_nargs += 4;
no, a gcc_unreachable () here. That is, make sure you have test coverage
for the above two cases (to me the len_opno >= 0 case is obvious)
> }
> else
> gcc_unreachable ();
> }
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
>
> From: Richard Biener
> Date: 2023-07-31 21:58
> To: ???
> CC: richard.sandiford; gcc-patches
> Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Support CALL vectorization for COND_LEN_*
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2023, ??? wrote:
>
> > Yeah. I have tried this case too.
> >
> > But this case doesn't need to be vectorized as COND_FMA, am I right?
>
> Only when you enable loop masking. Alternatively use
>
> double foo (double *a, double *b, double *c)
> {
> double result = 0.0;
> for (int i = 0; i < 1024; ++i)
> result += i & 1 ? __builtin_fma (a[i], b[i], c[i]) : 0.0;
> return result;
> }
>
> but then for me if-conversion produces
>
> iftmp.0_18 = __builtin_fma (_8, _10, _5);
> _ifc__43 = _26 ? iftmp.0_18 : 0.0;
>
> with -ffast-math (probably rightfully so). I then get .FMAs
> vectorized and .COND_FMA folded.
>
> > The thing I wonder is that whether this condtion:
> >
> > if (mask_opno >= 0 && reduc_idx >= 0)
> >
> > or similar as len
> > if (len_opno >= 0 && reduc_idx >= 0)
> >
> > Whether they are redundant in vectorizable_call ?
> >
> >
> > juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
> >
> > From: Richard Biener
> > Date: 2023-07-31 21:33
> > To: juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
> > CC: richard.sandiford; gcc-patches
> > Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Support CALL vectorization for COND_LEN_*
> > On Mon, 31 Jul 2023, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
> >
> > > Hi, Richi.
> > >
> > > >> I think you need to use fma from math.h together with -ffast-math
> > > >>to get fma.
> > >
> > > As you said, this is one of the case I tried:
> > > https://godbolt.org/z/xMzrrv5dT
> > > GCC failed to vectorize.
> > >
> > > Could you help me with this?
> >
> > double foo (double *a, double *b, double *c)
> > {
> > double result = 0.0;
> > for (int i = 0; i < 1024; ++i)
> > result += __builtin_fma (a[i], b[i], c[i]);
> > return result;
> > }
> >
> > with -mavx2 -mfma -Ofast this is vectorized on x86_64 to
> >
> > ...
> > vect__9.13_27 = MEM [(double *)vectp_a.11_29];
> > _9 = *_8;
> > vect__10.14_26 = .FMA (vect__7.10_30, vect__9.13_27, vect__4.7_33);
> > vect_result_17.15_25 = vect__10.14_26 + vect_result_20.4_36;
> > ...
> >
> > but ifcvt still shows
> >
> > _9 = *_8;
> > _10 = __builtin_fma (_7, _9, _4);
> > result_17 = _10 + result_20;
> >
> > still vectorizable_call has IFN_FMA with
> >
> > /* First try using an internal function. */
> > code_helper convert_code = MAX_TREE_CODES;
> > if (cfn != CFN_LAST
> > && (modifier == NONE
> > || (modifier == NARROW
> > && simple_integer_na
Re: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Support CALL vectorization for COND_LEN_*
Oh, Thanks a lot.
I can test it in RISC-V backend now.
But I have another questions:
>> I'm a bit confused (but also by the existing mask code), whether
>>vect_nargs needs adjustment depends on the IFN in the IL we analyze.
>>If if-conversion recognizes a .COND_ADD then we need to add nothing
>>for masking (that is, ifn == cond_fn already). In your code above
>>you either use cond_len_fn or get_len_internal_fn (cond_fn) but
>>isn't that the very same?! So how come you in one case add two
>>and in the other add four args?
>>Please make sure to place gcc_unreachable () in each arm and check
>>you have test coverage. I believe that the else arm is unreachable
>>but when you vectorize .FMA you will need to add 4 and when you
>>vectorize .COND_FMA you will need to add two arguments (as said,
>>no idea why we special case reduc_idx >= 0 at the moment).
Do you mean I add gcc_unreachable in else like this:
if (len_loop_p)
{
if (len_opno >= 0)
{
ifn = cond_len_fn;
/* COND_* -> COND_LEN_* takes 2 extra arguments:LEN,BIAS. */
vect_nargs += 2;
}
else if (reduc_idx >= 0)
{
/* FMA -> COND_LEN_FMA takes 4 extra arguments:MASK,ELSE,LEN,BIAS. */
ifn = get_len_internal_fn (cond_fn);
vect_nargs += 4;
}
else
gcc_unreachable ();
}
Thanks.
juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
From: Richard Biener
Date: 2023-07-31 21:58
To: 钟居哲
CC: richard.sandiford; gcc-patches
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Support CALL vectorization for COND_LEN_*
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023, ??? wrote:
> Yeah. I have tried this case too.
>
> But this case doesn't need to be vectorized as COND_FMA, am I right?
Only when you enable loop masking. Alternatively use
double foo (double *a, double *b, double *c)
{
double result = 0.0;
for (int i = 0; i < 1024; ++i)
result += i & 1 ? __builtin_fma (a[i], b[i], c[i]) : 0.0;
return result;
}
but then for me if-conversion produces
iftmp.0_18 = __builtin_fma (_8, _10, _5);
_ifc__43 = _26 ? iftmp.0_18 : 0.0;
with -ffast-math (probably rightfully so). I then get .FMAs
vectorized and .COND_FMA folded.
> The thing I wonder is that whether this condtion:
>
> if (mask_opno >= 0 && reduc_idx >= 0)
>
> or similar as len
> if (len_opno >= 0 && reduc_idx >= 0)
>
> Whether they are redundant in vectorizable_call ?
>
>
> juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
>
> From: Richard Biener
> Date: 2023-07-31 21:33
> To: juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
> CC: richard.sandiford; gcc-patches
> Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Support CALL vectorization for COND_LEN_*
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2023, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
>
> > Hi, Richi.
> >
> > >> I think you need to use fma from math.h together with -ffast-math
> > >>to get fma.
> >
> > As you said, this is one of the case I tried:
> > https://godbolt.org/z/xMzrrv5dT
> > GCC failed to vectorize.
> >
> > Could you help me with this?
>
> double foo (double *a, double *b, double *c)
> {
> double result = 0.0;
> for (int i = 0; i < 1024; ++i)
> result += __builtin_fma (a[i], b[i], c[i]);
> return result;
> }
>
> with -mavx2 -mfma -Ofast this is vectorized on x86_64 to
>
> ...
> vect__9.13_27 = MEM [(double *)vectp_a.11_29];
> _9 = *_8;
> vect__10.14_26 = .FMA (vect__7.10_30, vect__9.13_27, vect__4.7_33);
> vect_result_17.15_25 = vect__10.14_26 + vect_result_20.4_36;
> ...
>
> but ifcvt still shows
>
> _9 = *_8;
> _10 = __builtin_fma (_7, _9, _4);
> result_17 = _10 + result_20;
>
> still vectorizable_call has IFN_FMA with
>
> /* First try using an internal function. */
> code_helper convert_code = MAX_TREE_CODES;
> if (cfn != CFN_LAST
> && (modifier == NONE
> || (modifier == NARROW
> && simple_integer_narrowing (vectype_out, vectype_in,
> _code))))
> ifn = vectorizable_internal_function (cfn, callee, vectype_out,
> vectype_in);
>
> from CFN_BUILT_IN_FMA
>
>
>
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> > juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
> >
> > From: Richard Biener
> > Date: 2023-07-31 20:00
> > To: juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
> > CC: richard.sandiford; gcc-patches
> > Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Support CALL vectorization for COND_LEN_*
> > On Mon, 31 Jul 2023, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
> >
> > > Ok . Thanks Richard.
> > >
> > > Could you give me a case that SVE can vectorize a reduction with FMA?
> > > Meaning it will go into v
Re: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Support CALL vectorization for COND_LEN_*
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023, ??? wrote:
> Yeah. I have tried this case too.
>
> But this case doesn't need to be vectorized as COND_FMA, am I right?
Only when you enable loop masking. Alternatively use
double foo (double *a, double *b, double *c)
{
double result = 0.0;
for (int i = 0; i < 1024; ++i)
result += i & 1 ? __builtin_fma (a[i], b[i], c[i]) : 0.0;
return result;
}
but then for me if-conversion produces
iftmp.0_18 = __builtin_fma (_8, _10, _5);
_ifc__43 = _26 ? iftmp.0_18 : 0.0;
with -ffast-math (probably rightfully so). I then get .FMAs
vectorized and .COND_FMA folded.
> The thing I wonder is that whether this condtion:
>
> if (mask_opno >= 0 && reduc_idx >= 0)
>
> or similar as len
> if (len_opno >= 0 && reduc_idx >= 0)
>
> Whether they are redundant in vectorizable_call ?
>
>
> juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
>
> From: Richard Biener
> Date: 2023-07-31 21:33
> To: juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
> CC: richard.sandiford; gcc-patches
> Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Support CALL vectorization for COND_LEN_*
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2023, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
>
> > Hi, Richi.
> >
> > >> I think you need to use fma from math.h together with -ffast-math
> > >>to get fma.
> >
> > As you said, this is one of the case I tried:
> > https://godbolt.org/z/xMzrrv5dT
> > GCC failed to vectorize.
> >
> > Could you help me with this?
>
> double foo (double *a, double *b, double *c)
> {
> double result = 0.0;
> for (int i = 0; i < 1024; ++i)
> result += __builtin_fma (a[i], b[i], c[i]);
> return result;
> }
>
> with -mavx2 -mfma -Ofast this is vectorized on x86_64 to
>
> ...
> vect__9.13_27 = MEM [(double *)vectp_a.11_29];
> _9 = *_8;
> vect__10.14_26 = .FMA (vect__7.10_30, vect__9.13_27, vect__4.7_33);
> vect_result_17.15_25 = vect__10.14_26 + vect_result_20.4_36;
> ...
>
> but ifcvt still shows
>
> _9 = *_8;
> _10 = __builtin_fma (_7, _9, _4);
> result_17 = _10 + result_20;
>
> still vectorizable_call has IFN_FMA with
>
> /* First try using an internal function. */
> code_helper convert_code = MAX_TREE_CODES;
> if (cfn != CFN_LAST
> && (modifier == NONE
> || (modifier == NARROW
> && simple_integer_narrowing (vectype_out, vectype_in,
>_code
> ifn = vectorizable_internal_function (cfn, callee, vectype_out,
> vectype_in);
>
> from CFN_BUILT_IN_FMA
>
>
>
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> > juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
> >
> > From: Richard Biener
> > Date: 2023-07-31 20:00
> > To: juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
> > CC: richard.sandiford; gcc-patches
> > Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Support CALL vectorization for COND_LEN_*
> > On Mon, 31 Jul 2023, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
> >
> > > Ok . Thanks Richard.
> > >
> > > Could you give me a case that SVE can vectorize a reduction with FMA?
> > > Meaning it will go into vectorize_call and vectorize FMA into COND_FMA ?
> > >
> > > I tried many times to reproduce such cases but I failed.
> >
> > I think you need to use fma from math.h together with -ffast-math
> > to get fma.
> >
> > Richard.
> >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > >
> > > juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
> > >
> > > From: Richard Sandiford
> > > Date: 2023-07-31 18:19
> > > To: Juzhe-Zhong
> > > CC: gcc-patches; rguenther
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Support CALL vectorization for COND_LEN_*
> > > Juzhe-Zhong writes:
> > > > Hi, Richard and Richi.
> > > >
> > > > Base on the suggestions from Richard:
> > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-July/625396.html
> > > >
> > > > This patch choose (1) approach that Richard provided, meaning:
> > > >
> > > > RVV implements cond_* optabs as expanders. RVV therefore supports
> > > > both IFN_COND_ADD and IFN_COND_LEN_ADD. No dummy length arguments
> > > > are needed at the gimple level.
> > > >
> > > > Such approach can make codes much cleaner and reasonable.
> > > >
> > > > Consider this following case:
> > > > void foo (float * __restrict a, float * __restrict b, int * __restrict
> > > > cond, int n)
> > > > {
> > > > for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
> > > > if (cond[i])
> &
Re: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Support CALL vectorization for COND_LEN_*
Yeah. I have tried this case too.
But this case doesn't need to be vectorized as COND_FMA, am I right?
The thing I wonder is that whether this condtion:
if (mask_opno >= 0 && reduc_idx >= 0)
or similar as len
if (len_opno >= 0 && reduc_idx >= 0)
Whether they are redundant in vectorizable_call ?
juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
From: Richard Biener
Date: 2023-07-31 21:33
To: juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
CC: richard.sandiford; gcc-patches
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Support CALL vectorization for COND_LEN_*
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
> Hi, Richi.
>
> >> I think you need to use fma from math.h together with -ffast-math
> >>to get fma.
>
> As you said, this is one of the case I tried:
> https://godbolt.org/z/xMzrrv5dT
> GCC failed to vectorize.
>
> Could you help me with this?
double foo (double *a, double *b, double *c)
{
double result = 0.0;
for (int i = 0; i < 1024; ++i)
result += __builtin_fma (a[i], b[i], c[i]);
return result;
}
with -mavx2 -mfma -Ofast this is vectorized on x86_64 to
...
vect__9.13_27 = MEM [(double *)vectp_a.11_29];
_9 = *_8;
vect__10.14_26 = .FMA (vect__7.10_30, vect__9.13_27, vect__4.7_33);
vect_result_17.15_25 = vect__10.14_26 + vect_result_20.4_36;
...
but ifcvt still shows
_9 = *_8;
_10 = __builtin_fma (_7, _9, _4);
result_17 = _10 + result_20;
still vectorizable_call has IFN_FMA with
/* First try using an internal function. */
code_helper convert_code = MAX_TREE_CODES;
if (cfn != CFN_LAST
&& (modifier == NONE
|| (modifier == NARROW
&& simple_integer_narrowing (vectype_out, vectype_in,
_code
ifn = vectorizable_internal_function (cfn, callee, vectype_out,
vectype_in);
from CFN_BUILT_IN_FMA
> Thanks.
>
>
> juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
>
> From: Richard Biener
> Date: 2023-07-31 20:00
> To: juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
> CC: richard.sandiford; gcc-patches
> Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Support CALL vectorization for COND_LEN_*
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2023, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
>
> > Ok . Thanks Richard.
> >
> > Could you give me a case that SVE can vectorize a reduction with FMA?
> > Meaning it will go into vectorize_call and vectorize FMA into COND_FMA ?
> >
> > I tried many times to reproduce such cases but I failed.
>
> I think you need to use fma from math.h together with -ffast-math
> to get fma.
>
> Richard.
>
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> > juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
> >
> > From: Richard Sandiford
> > Date: 2023-07-31 18:19
> > To: Juzhe-Zhong
> > CC: gcc-patches; rguenther
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Support CALL vectorization for COND_LEN_*
> > Juzhe-Zhong writes:
> > > Hi, Richard and Richi.
> > >
> > > Base on the suggestions from Richard:
> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-July/625396.html
> > >
> > > This patch choose (1) approach that Richard provided, meaning:
> > >
> > > RVV implements cond_* optabs as expanders. RVV therefore supports
> > > both IFN_COND_ADD and IFN_COND_LEN_ADD. No dummy length arguments
> > > are needed at the gimple level.
> > >
> > > Such approach can make codes much cleaner and reasonable.
> > >
> > > Consider this following case:
> > > void foo (float * __restrict a, float * __restrict b, int * __restrict
> > > cond, int n)
> > > {
> > > for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
> > > if (cond[i])
> > > a[i] = b[i] + a[i];
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > > Output of RISC-V (32-bits) gcc (trunk) (Compiler #3)
> > > :5:21: missed: couldn't vectorize loop
> > > :5:21: missed: not vectorized: control flow in loop.
> > >
> > > ARM SVE:
> > >
> > > ...
> > > mask__27.10_51 = vect__4.9_49 != { 0, ... };
> > > ...
> > > vec_mask_and_55 = loop_mask_49 & mask__27.10_51;
> > > ...
> > > vect__9.17_62 = .COND_ADD (vec_mask_and_55, vect__6.13_56, vect__8.16_60,
> > > vect__6.13_56);
> > >
> > > For RVV, we want IR as follows:
> > >
> > > ...
> > > _68 = .SELECT_VL (ivtmp_66, POLY_INT_CST [4, 4]);
> > > ...
> > > mask__27.10_51 = vect__4.9_49 != { 0, ... };
> > > ...
> > > vect__9.17_60 = .COND_LEN_ADD (mask__27.10_51, vect__6.13_55,
> > > vect__8.16_59, vect__6.13_55, _68, 0);
> > > ...
> > >
> > > Both len and mask of COND_LEN_ADD are real not dumm
Re: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Support CALL vectorization for COND_LEN_*
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
> Hi, Richi.
>
> >> I think you need to use fma from math.h together with -ffast-math
> >>to get fma.
>
> As you said, this is one of the case I tried:
> https://godbolt.org/z/xMzrrv5dT
> GCC failed to vectorize.
>
> Could you help me with this?
double foo (double *a, double *b, double *c)
{
double result = 0.0;
for (int i = 0; i < 1024; ++i)
result += __builtin_fma (a[i], b[i], c[i]);
return result;
}
with -mavx2 -mfma -Ofast this is vectorized on x86_64 to
...
vect__9.13_27 = MEM [(double *)vectp_a.11_29];
_9 = *_8;
vect__10.14_26 = .FMA (vect__7.10_30, vect__9.13_27, vect__4.7_33);
vect_result_17.15_25 = vect__10.14_26 + vect_result_20.4_36;
...
but ifcvt still shows
_9 = *_8;
_10 = __builtin_fma (_7, _9, _4);
result_17 = _10 + result_20;
still vectorizable_call has IFN_FMA with
/* First try using an internal function. */
code_helper convert_code = MAX_TREE_CODES;
if (cfn != CFN_LAST
&& (modifier == NONE
|| (modifier == NARROW
&& simple_integer_narrowing (vectype_out, vectype_in,
_code
ifn = vectorizable_internal_function (cfn, callee, vectype_out,
vectype_in);
from CFN_BUILT_IN_FMA
> Thanks.
>
>
> juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
>
> From: Richard Biener
> Date: 2023-07-31 20:00
> To: juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
> CC: richard.sandiford; gcc-patches
> Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Support CALL vectorization for COND_LEN_*
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2023, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
>
> > Ok . Thanks Richard.
> >
> > Could you give me a case that SVE can vectorize a reduction with FMA?
> > Meaning it will go into vectorize_call and vectorize FMA into COND_FMA ?
> >
> > I tried many times to reproduce such cases but I failed.
>
> I think you need to use fma from math.h together with -ffast-math
> to get fma.
>
> Richard.
>
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> > juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
> >
> > From: Richard Sandiford
> > Date: 2023-07-31 18:19
> > To: Juzhe-Zhong
> > CC: gcc-patches; rguenther
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Support CALL vectorization for COND_LEN_*
> > Juzhe-Zhong writes:
> > > Hi, Richard and Richi.
> > >
> > > Base on the suggestions from Richard:
> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-July/625396.html
> > >
> > > This patch choose (1) approach that Richard provided, meaning:
> > >
> > > RVV implements cond_* optabs as expanders. RVV therefore supports
> > > both IFN_COND_ADD and IFN_COND_LEN_ADD. No dummy length arguments
> > > are needed at the gimple level.
> > >
> > > Such approach can make codes much cleaner and reasonable.
> > >
> > > Consider this following case:
> > > void foo (float * __restrict a, float * __restrict b, int * __restrict
> > > cond, int n)
> > > {
> > > for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
> > > if (cond[i])
> > > a[i] = b[i] + a[i];
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > > Output of RISC-V (32-bits) gcc (trunk) (Compiler #3)
> > > :5:21: missed: couldn't vectorize loop
> > > :5:21: missed: not vectorized: control flow in loop.
> > >
> > > ARM SVE:
> > >
> > > ...
> > > mask__27.10_51 = vect__4.9_49 != { 0, ... };
> > > ...
> > > vec_mask_and_55 = loop_mask_49 & mask__27.10_51;
> > > ...
> > > vect__9.17_62 = .COND_ADD (vec_mask_and_55, vect__6.13_56, vect__8.16_60,
> > > vect__6.13_56);
> > >
> > > For RVV, we want IR as follows:
> > >
> > > ...
> > > _68 = .SELECT_VL (ivtmp_66, POLY_INT_CST [4, 4]);
> > > ...
> > > mask__27.10_51 = vect__4.9_49 != { 0, ... };
> > > ...
> > > vect__9.17_60 = .COND_LEN_ADD (mask__27.10_51, vect__6.13_55,
> > > vect__8.16_59, vect__6.13_55, _68, 0);
> > > ...
> > >
> > > Both len and mask of COND_LEN_ADD are real not dummy.
> > >
> > > This patch has been fully tested in RISC-V port with supporting both
> > > COND_* and COND_LEN_*.
> > >
> > > And also, Bootstrap and Regression on X86 passed.
> > >
> > > OK for trunk?
> > >
> > > gcc/ChangeLog:
> > >
> > > * internal-fn.cc (FOR_EACH_LEN_FN_PAIR): New macro.
> > > (get_len_internal_fn): New function.
> > > (CASE): Ditto.
> > > * internal-fn.h (get_len_internal_fn): Ditto
Re: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Support CALL vectorization for COND_LEN_*
Hi, Richi.
>> I think you need to use fma from math.h together with -ffast-math
>>to get fma.
As you said, this is one of the case I tried:
https://godbolt.org/z/xMzrrv5dT
GCC failed to vectorize.
Could you help me with this?
Thanks.
juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
From: Richard Biener
Date: 2023-07-31 20:00
To: juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
CC: richard.sandiford; gcc-patches
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Support CALL vectorization for COND_LEN_*
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
> Ok . Thanks Richard.
>
> Could you give me a case that SVE can vectorize a reduction with FMA?
> Meaning it will go into vectorize_call and vectorize FMA into COND_FMA ?
>
> I tried many times to reproduce such cases but I failed.
I think you need to use fma from math.h together with -ffast-math
to get fma.
Richard.
> Thanks.
>
>
> juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
>
> From: Richard Sandiford
> Date: 2023-07-31 18:19
> To: Juzhe-Zhong
> CC: gcc-patches; rguenther
> Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Support CALL vectorization for COND_LEN_*
> Juzhe-Zhong writes:
> > Hi, Richard and Richi.
> >
> > Base on the suggestions from Richard:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-July/625396.html
> >
> > This patch choose (1) approach that Richard provided, meaning:
> >
> > RVV implements cond_* optabs as expanders. RVV therefore supports
> > both IFN_COND_ADD and IFN_COND_LEN_ADD. No dummy length arguments
> > are needed at the gimple level.
> >
> > Such approach can make codes much cleaner and reasonable.
> >
> > Consider this following case:
> > void foo (float * __restrict a, float * __restrict b, int * __restrict
> > cond, int n)
> > {
> > for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
> > if (cond[i])
> > a[i] = b[i] + a[i];
> > }
> >
> >
> > Output of RISC-V (32-bits) gcc (trunk) (Compiler #3)
> > :5:21: missed: couldn't vectorize loop
> > :5:21: missed: not vectorized: control flow in loop.
> >
> > ARM SVE:
> >
> > ...
> > mask__27.10_51 = vect__4.9_49 != { 0, ... };
> > ...
> > vec_mask_and_55 = loop_mask_49 & mask__27.10_51;
> > ...
> > vect__9.17_62 = .COND_ADD (vec_mask_and_55, vect__6.13_56, vect__8.16_60,
> > vect__6.13_56);
> >
> > For RVV, we want IR as follows:
> >
> > ...
> > _68 = .SELECT_VL (ivtmp_66, POLY_INT_CST [4, 4]);
> > ...
> > mask__27.10_51 = vect__4.9_49 != { 0, ... };
> > ...
> > vect__9.17_60 = .COND_LEN_ADD (mask__27.10_51, vect__6.13_55,
> > vect__8.16_59, vect__6.13_55, _68, 0);
> > ...
> >
> > Both len and mask of COND_LEN_ADD are real not dummy.
> >
> > This patch has been fully tested in RISC-V port with supporting both COND_*
> > and COND_LEN_*.
> >
> > And also, Bootstrap and Regression on X86 passed.
> >
> > OK for trunk?
> >
> > gcc/ChangeLog:
> >
> > * internal-fn.cc (FOR_EACH_LEN_FN_PAIR): New macro.
> > (get_len_internal_fn): New function.
> > (CASE): Ditto.
> > * internal-fn.h (get_len_internal_fn): Ditto.
> > * tree-vect-stmts.cc (vectorizable_call): Support CALL
> > vectorization with COND_LEN_*.
> >
> > ---
> > gcc/internal-fn.cc | 46 ++
> > gcc/internal-fn.h | 1 +
> > gcc/tree-vect-stmts.cc | 87 +-
> > 3 files changed, 125 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/gcc/internal-fn.cc b/gcc/internal-fn.cc
> > index 8e294286388..379220bebc7 100644
> > --- a/gcc/internal-fn.cc
> > +++ b/gcc/internal-fn.cc
> > @@ -4443,6 +4443,52 @@ get_conditional_internal_fn (internal_fn fn)
> > }
> > }
> >
> > +/* Invoke T(IFN) for each internal function IFN that also has an
> > + IFN_COND_LEN_* or IFN_MASK_LEN_* form. */
> > +#define FOR_EACH_LEN_FN_PAIR(T)
> > \
> > + T (MASK_LOAD, MASK_LEN_LOAD)
> > \
> > + T (MASK_STORE, MASK_LEN_STORE)
> > \
> > + T (MASK_GATHER_LOAD, MASK_LEN_GATHER_LOAD)
> > \
> > + T (MASK_SCATTER_STORE, MASK_LEN_SCATTER_STORE)
> > \
> > + T (COND_ADD, COND_LEN_ADD)
> > \
> > + T (COND_SUB, COND_LEN_SUB)
> > \
> > + T (COND_MU
Re: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Support CALL vectorization for COND_LEN_*
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
> Ok . Thanks Richard.
>
> Could you give me a case that SVE can vectorize a reduction with FMA?
> Meaning it will go into vectorize_call and vectorize FMA into COND_FMA ?
>
> I tried many times to reproduce such cases but I failed.
I think you need to use fma from math.h together with -ffast-math
to get fma.
Richard.
> Thanks.
>
>
> juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
>
> From: Richard Sandiford
> Date: 2023-07-31 18:19
> To: Juzhe-Zhong
> CC: gcc-patches; rguenther
> Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Support CALL vectorization for COND_LEN_*
> Juzhe-Zhong writes:
> > Hi, Richard and Richi.
> >
> > Base on the suggestions from Richard:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-July/625396.html
> >
> > This patch choose (1) approach that Richard provided, meaning:
> >
> > RVV implements cond_* optabs as expanders. RVV therefore supports
> > both IFN_COND_ADD and IFN_COND_LEN_ADD. No dummy length arguments
> > are needed at the gimple level.
> >
> > Such approach can make codes much cleaner and reasonable.
> >
> > Consider this following case:
> > void foo (float * __restrict a, float * __restrict b, int * __restrict
> > cond, int n)
> > {
> > for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
> > if (cond[i])
> > a[i] = b[i] + a[i];
> > }
> >
> >
> > Output of RISC-V (32-bits) gcc (trunk) (Compiler #3)
> > :5:21: missed: couldn't vectorize loop
> > :5:21: missed: not vectorized: control flow in loop.
> >
> > ARM SVE:
> >
> > ...
> > mask__27.10_51 = vect__4.9_49 != { 0, ... };
> > ...
> > vec_mask_and_55 = loop_mask_49 & mask__27.10_51;
> > ...
> > vect__9.17_62 = .COND_ADD (vec_mask_and_55, vect__6.13_56, vect__8.16_60,
> > vect__6.13_56);
> >
> > For RVV, we want IR as follows:
> >
> > ...
> > _68 = .SELECT_VL (ivtmp_66, POLY_INT_CST [4, 4]);
> > ...
> > mask__27.10_51 = vect__4.9_49 != { 0, ... };
> > ...
> > vect__9.17_60 = .COND_LEN_ADD (mask__27.10_51, vect__6.13_55,
> > vect__8.16_59, vect__6.13_55, _68, 0);
> > ...
> >
> > Both len and mask of COND_LEN_ADD are real not dummy.
> >
> > This patch has been fully tested in RISC-V port with supporting both COND_*
> > and COND_LEN_*.
> >
> > And also, Bootstrap and Regression on X86 passed.
> >
> > OK for trunk?
> >
> > gcc/ChangeLog:
> >
> > * internal-fn.cc (FOR_EACH_LEN_FN_PAIR): New macro.
> > (get_len_internal_fn): New function.
> > (CASE): Ditto.
> > * internal-fn.h (get_len_internal_fn): Ditto.
> > * tree-vect-stmts.cc (vectorizable_call): Support CALL
> > vectorization with COND_LEN_*.
> >
> > ---
> > gcc/internal-fn.cc | 46 ++
> > gcc/internal-fn.h | 1 +
> > gcc/tree-vect-stmts.cc | 87 +-
> > 3 files changed, 125 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/gcc/internal-fn.cc b/gcc/internal-fn.cc
> > index 8e294286388..379220bebc7 100644
> > --- a/gcc/internal-fn.cc
> > +++ b/gcc/internal-fn.cc
> > @@ -4443,6 +4443,52 @@ get_conditional_internal_fn (internal_fn fn)
> > }
> > }
> >
> > +/* Invoke T(IFN) for each internal function IFN that also has an
> > + IFN_COND_LEN_* or IFN_MASK_LEN_* form. */
> > +#define FOR_EACH_LEN_FN_PAIR(T)
> > \
> > + T (MASK_LOAD, MASK_LEN_LOAD)
> > \
> > + T (MASK_STORE, MASK_LEN_STORE)
> > \
> > + T (MASK_GATHER_LOAD, MASK_LEN_GATHER_LOAD)
> > \
> > + T (MASK_SCATTER_STORE, MASK_LEN_SCATTER_STORE)
> > \
> > + T (COND_ADD, COND_LEN_ADD)
> > \
> > + T (COND_SUB, COND_LEN_SUB)
> > \
> > + T (COND_MUL, COND_LEN_MUL)
> > \
> > + T (COND_DIV, COND_LEN_DIV)
> > \
> > + T (COND_MOD, COND_LEN_MOD)
> > \
> > + T (COND_RDIV, COND_LEN_RDIV)
> > \
> > + T (COND_FMIN, COND_LEN_FMIN)
Re: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Support CALL vectorization for COND_LEN_*
Ok . Thanks Richard.
Could you give me a case that SVE can vectorize a reduction with FMA?
Meaning it will go into vectorize_call and vectorize FMA into COND_FMA ?
I tried many times to reproduce such cases but I failed.
Thanks.
juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
From: Richard Sandiford
Date: 2023-07-31 18:19
To: Juzhe-Zhong
CC: gcc-patches; rguenther
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Support CALL vectorization for COND_LEN_*
Juzhe-Zhong writes:
> Hi, Richard and Richi.
>
> Base on the suggestions from Richard:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-July/625396.html
>
> This patch choose (1) approach that Richard provided, meaning:
>
> RVV implements cond_* optabs as expanders. RVV therefore supports
> both IFN_COND_ADD and IFN_COND_LEN_ADD. No dummy length arguments
> are needed at the gimple level.
>
> Such approach can make codes much cleaner and reasonable.
>
> Consider this following case:
> void foo (float * __restrict a, float * __restrict b, int * __restrict cond,
> int n)
> {
> for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
> if (cond[i])
> a[i] = b[i] + a[i];
> }
>
>
> Output of RISC-V (32-bits) gcc (trunk) (Compiler #3)
> :5:21: missed: couldn't vectorize loop
> :5:21: missed: not vectorized: control flow in loop.
>
> ARM SVE:
>
> ...
> mask__27.10_51 = vect__4.9_49 != { 0, ... };
> ...
> vec_mask_and_55 = loop_mask_49 & mask__27.10_51;
> ...
> vect__9.17_62 = .COND_ADD (vec_mask_and_55, vect__6.13_56, vect__8.16_60,
> vect__6.13_56);
>
> For RVV, we want IR as follows:
>
> ...
> _68 = .SELECT_VL (ivtmp_66, POLY_INT_CST [4, 4]);
> ...
> mask__27.10_51 = vect__4.9_49 != { 0, ... };
> ...
> vect__9.17_60 = .COND_LEN_ADD (mask__27.10_51, vect__6.13_55, vect__8.16_59,
> vect__6.13_55, _68, 0);
> ...
>
> Both len and mask of COND_LEN_ADD are real not dummy.
>
> This patch has been fully tested in RISC-V port with supporting both COND_*
> and COND_LEN_*.
>
> And also, Bootstrap and Regression on X86 passed.
>
> OK for trunk?
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> * internal-fn.cc (FOR_EACH_LEN_FN_PAIR): New macro.
> (get_len_internal_fn): New function.
> (CASE): Ditto.
> * internal-fn.h (get_len_internal_fn): Ditto.
> * tree-vect-stmts.cc (vectorizable_call): Support CALL vectorization
> with COND_LEN_*.
>
> ---
> gcc/internal-fn.cc | 46 ++
> gcc/internal-fn.h | 1 +
> gcc/tree-vect-stmts.cc | 87 +-
> 3 files changed, 125 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/internal-fn.cc b/gcc/internal-fn.cc
> index 8e294286388..379220bebc7 100644
> --- a/gcc/internal-fn.cc
> +++ b/gcc/internal-fn.cc
> @@ -4443,6 +4443,52 @@ get_conditional_internal_fn (internal_fn fn)
> }
> }
>
> +/* Invoke T(IFN) for each internal function IFN that also has an
> + IFN_COND_LEN_* or IFN_MASK_LEN_* form. */
> +#define FOR_EACH_LEN_FN_PAIR(T)
> \
> + T (MASK_LOAD, MASK_LEN_LOAD)
> \
> + T (MASK_STORE, MASK_LEN_STORE)
> \
> + T (MASK_GATHER_LOAD, MASK_LEN_GATHER_LOAD)
> \
> + T (MASK_SCATTER_STORE, MASK_LEN_SCATTER_STORE)
> \
> + T (COND_ADD, COND_LEN_ADD)
> \
> + T (COND_SUB, COND_LEN_SUB)
> \
> + T (COND_MUL, COND_LEN_MUL)
> \
> + T (COND_DIV, COND_LEN_DIV)
> \
> + T (COND_MOD, COND_LEN_MOD)
> \
> + T (COND_RDIV, COND_LEN_RDIV)
> \
> + T (COND_FMIN, COND_LEN_FMIN)
> \
> + T (COND_FMAX, COND_LEN_FMAX)
> \
> + T (COND_MIN, COND_LEN_MIN)
> \
> + T (COND_MAX, COND_LEN_MAX)
> \
> + T (COND_AND, COND_LEN_AND)
> \
> + T (COND_IOR, COND_LEN_IOR)
> \
> + T (COND_XOR, COND_LEN_XOR)
> \
> + T (COND_SHL, COND_LEN_SHL)
> \
> + T (COND_SHR, COND_LEN_SHR)
> \
> + T (COND_NEG, COND_LEN_NEG
Re: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Support CALL vectorization for COND_LEN_*
>> Ah. So then just feed it cond_fn? I mean, we don't have >> LEN_FMA, the only LEN-but-not-MASK ifns are those used by >> power/s390, LEN_LOAD and LEN_STORE? Yes, that's why I feed cond_fn with get_len_internal_fn (cond_fn) >> Yes, but all of this depends on what the original ifn is, no? Yes. >> reduc_idx < 0 means this stmt isn't part of a reduction. So yes, >> you can vectorize FMA as COND_LEN_FMA with dummy mask and len if you >> don't have FMA expanders? Could you give me an example that reduction >= 0 when vectorizing FMA into COND_LEN_FMA? Actually, I failed to produce such circumstance in this patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-July/625697.html I only fully tested vectorizing COND_* into COND_LEN_* but I failed to produce the case that: FMA ---> COND_LEN_FMA. juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai From: Richard Biener Date: 2023-07-31 18:45 To: juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai CC: gcc-patches; richard.sandiford Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Support CALL vectorization for COND_LEN_* On Mon, 31 Jul 2023, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote: > Hi, Richard. Thanks a lot for the comment > > >> In your code above > >> you either use cond_len_fn or get_len_internal_fn (cond_fn) but > >> isn't that the very same?! So how come you in one case add two > >> and in the other add four args? > > cond_len_fn is not the same as get_len_internal_fn (cond_fn) when vectorizing > FMA into COND_LEN_FMA. > > since "internal_fn cond_len_fn = get_len_internal_fn (ifn);" > > and the iterators: > > +#define FOR_EACH_LEN_FN_PAIR(T) > > \ > > + T (MASK_LOAD, MASK_LEN_LOAD) > > \ > > + T (MASK_STORE, MASK_LEN_STORE) > > \ > > + T (MASK_GATHER_LOAD, MASK_LEN_GATHER_LOAD) > > \ > > + T (MASK_SCATTER_STORE, MASK_LEN_SCATTER_STORE) > > \ > > + T (COND_ADD, COND_LEN_ADD) > > \ > > + T (COND_SUB, COND_LEN_SUB) > > \ > > + T (COND_MUL, COND_LEN_MUL) > > \ > > + T (COND_DIV, COND_LEN_DIV) > > \ > > + T (COND_MOD, COND_LEN_MOD) > > \ > > + T (COND_RDIV, COND_LEN_RDIV) > > \ > > + T (COND_FMIN, COND_LEN_FMIN) > > \ > > + T (COND_FMAX, COND_LEN_FMAX) > > \ > > + T (COND_MIN, COND_LEN_MIN) > > \ > > + T (COND_MAX, COND_LEN_MAX) > > \ > > + T (COND_AND, COND_LEN_AND) > > \ > > + T (COND_IOR, COND_LEN_IOR) > > \ > > + T (COND_XOR, COND_LEN_XOR) > > \ > > + T (COND_SHL, COND_LEN_SHL) > > \ > > + T (COND_SHR, COND_LEN_SHR) > > \ > > + T (COND_NEG, COND_LEN_NEG) > > \ > > + T (COND_FMA, COND_LEN_FMA) > > \ > > + T (COND_FMS, COND_LEN_FMS) > > \ > > + T (COND_FNMA, COND_LEN_FNMA) > > \ > > + T (COND_FNMS, COND_LEN_FNMS) > > So, cond_len_fn will be IFN_LAST when ifn = FMA. Ah. So then just feed it cond_fn? I mean, we don't have LEN_FMA, the only LEN-but-not-MASK ifns are those used by power/s390, LEN_LOAD and LEN_STORE? > Maybe is it reasonable that I add 4 more iterators here? > > + T (FMA, COND_LEN_FMA) \ > > + T (FMS, COND_LEN_FMS) \ > > + T (FNMA, COND_LEN_FNMA) \ > > + T (FNMS, COND_LEN_FNMS) > > So that we won't need to have "get_len_internal_fn (cond_fn)" No, as said we don't have LEN_FMA. > When vectorizing COND_ADD into COND_LEN_ADD we already have "mask" and "else" > value. > So we only need to add 2 arg
Re: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Support CALL vectorization for COND_LEN_*
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote: > Hi, Richard. Thanks a lot for the comment > > >> In your code above > >> you either use cond_len_fn or get_len_internal_fn (cond_fn) but > >> isn't that the very same?! So how come you in one case add two > >> and in the other add four args? > > cond_len_fn is not the same as get_len_internal_fn (cond_fn) when vectorizing > FMA into COND_LEN_FMA. > > since "internal_fn cond_len_fn = get_len_internal_fn (ifn);" > > and the iterators: > > +#define FOR_EACH_LEN_FN_PAIR(T) > > \ > > + T (MASK_LOAD, MASK_LEN_LOAD) > > \ > > + T (MASK_STORE, MASK_LEN_STORE) > > \ > > + T (MASK_GATHER_LOAD, MASK_LEN_GATHER_LOAD) > > \ > > + T (MASK_SCATTER_STORE, MASK_LEN_SCATTER_STORE) > > \ > > + T (COND_ADD, COND_LEN_ADD) > > \ > > + T (COND_SUB, COND_LEN_SUB) > > \ > > + T (COND_MUL, COND_LEN_MUL) > > \ > > + T (COND_DIV, COND_LEN_DIV) > > \ > > + T (COND_MOD, COND_LEN_MOD) > > \ > > + T (COND_RDIV, COND_LEN_RDIV) > > \ > > + T (COND_FMIN, COND_LEN_FMIN) > > \ > > + T (COND_FMAX, COND_LEN_FMAX) > > \ > > + T (COND_MIN, COND_LEN_MIN) > > \ > > + T (COND_MAX, COND_LEN_MAX) > > \ > > + T (COND_AND, COND_LEN_AND) > > \ > > + T (COND_IOR, COND_LEN_IOR) > > \ > > + T (COND_XOR, COND_LEN_XOR) > > \ > > + T (COND_SHL, COND_LEN_SHL) > > \ > > + T (COND_SHR, COND_LEN_SHR) > > \ > > + T (COND_NEG, COND_LEN_NEG) > > \ > > + T (COND_FMA, COND_LEN_FMA) > > \ > > + T (COND_FMS, COND_LEN_FMS) > > \ > > + T (COND_FNMA, COND_LEN_FNMA) > > \ > > + T (COND_FNMS, COND_LEN_FNMS) > > So, cond_len_fn will be IFN_LAST when ifn = FMA. Ah. So then just feed it cond_fn? I mean, we don't have LEN_FMA, the only LEN-but-not-MASK ifns are those used by power/s390, LEN_LOAD and LEN_STORE? > Maybe is it reasonable that I add 4 more iterators here? > > + T (FMA, COND_LEN_FMA) \ > > + T (FMS, COND_LEN_FMS) \ > > + T (FNMA, COND_LEN_FNMA) \ > > + T (FNMS, COND_LEN_FNMS) > > So that we won't need to have "get_len_internal_fn (cond_fn)" No, as said we don't have LEN_FMA. > When vectorizing COND_ADD into COND_LEN_ADD we already have "mask" and "else" > value. > So we only need to add 2 arguments. > > But when vectorizing FMA into COND_LEN_FMA, we need to add 4 arguments > (mask,else,len,bias). Yes, but all of this depends on what the original ifn is, no? > >>as said, > >>no idea why we special case reduc_idx >= 0 at the moment > > I also want to vectorize FMA into COND_LEN_FMA even reduc_idx < 0. > Could I relax this condition for COND_LEN_* since it will improve RVV codegen > a lot. reduc_idx < 0 means this stmt isn't part of a reduction. So yes, you can vectorize FMA as COND_LEN_FMA with dummy mask and len if you don't have FMA expanders? Richard. > Thanks. > > > juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai > > From: Richard Biener > Date: 2023-07-31 17:26 > To: Juzhe-Zhong > CC: gcc-patches; richard.sandiford > Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Support CALL vectorization for COND_LEN_* > On Fri, 28 Jul 2023, Juzhe-Zhong wrote: > > > Hi, Richard and Richi. > > > > Base on the suggestions from Richard: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patch
Re: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Support CALL vectorization for COND_LEN_*
Hi, Richard. Thanks a lot for the comment
>> In your code above
>> you either use cond_len_fn or get_len_internal_fn (cond_fn) but
>> isn't that the very same?! So how come you in one case add two
>> and in the other add four args?
cond_len_fn is not the same as get_len_internal_fn (cond_fn) when vectorizing
FMA into COND_LEN_FMA.
since "internal_fn cond_len_fn = get_len_internal_fn (ifn);"
and the iterators:
> +#define FOR_EACH_LEN_FN_PAIR(T)
> \
> + T (MASK_LOAD, MASK_LEN_LOAD)
> \
> + T (MASK_STORE, MASK_LEN_STORE)
> \
> + T (MASK_GATHER_LOAD, MASK_LEN_GATHER_LOAD)
> \
> + T (MASK_SCATTER_STORE, MASK_LEN_SCATTER_STORE)
> \
> + T (COND_ADD, COND_LEN_ADD)
> \
> + T (COND_SUB, COND_LEN_SUB)
> \
> + T (COND_MUL, COND_LEN_MUL)
> \
> + T (COND_DIV, COND_LEN_DIV)
> \
> + T (COND_MOD, COND_LEN_MOD)
> \
> + T (COND_RDIV, COND_LEN_RDIV)
> \
> + T (COND_FMIN, COND_LEN_FMIN)
> \
> + T (COND_FMAX, COND_LEN_FMAX)
> \
> + T (COND_MIN, COND_LEN_MIN)
> \
> + T (COND_MAX, COND_LEN_MAX)
> \
> + T (COND_AND, COND_LEN_AND)
> \
> + T (COND_IOR, COND_LEN_IOR)
> \
> + T (COND_XOR, COND_LEN_XOR)
> \
> + T (COND_SHL, COND_LEN_SHL)
> \
> + T (COND_SHR, COND_LEN_SHR)
> \
> + T (COND_NEG, COND_LEN_NEG)
> \
> + T (COND_FMA, COND_LEN_FMA)
> \
> + T (COND_FMS, COND_LEN_FMS)
> \
> + T (COND_FNMA, COND_LEN_FNMA)
> \
> + T (COND_FNMS, COND_LEN_FNMS)
So, cond_len_fn will be IFN_LAST when ifn = FMA.
Maybe is it reasonable that I add 4 more iterators here?
> + T (FMA, COND_LEN_FMA) \
> + T (FMS, COND_LEN_FMS) \
> + T (FNMA, COND_LEN_FNMA) \
> + T (FNMS, COND_LEN_FNMS)
So that we won't need to have "get_len_internal_fn (cond_fn)"
When vectorizing COND_ADD into COND_LEN_ADD we already have "mask" and "else"
value.
So we only need to add 2 arguments.
But when vectorizing FMA into COND_LEN_FMA, we need to add 4 arguments
(mask,else,len,bias).
>>as said,
>>no idea why we special case reduc_idx >= 0 at the moment
I also want to vectorize FMA into COND_LEN_FMA even reduc_idx < 0.
Could I relax this condition for COND_LEN_* since it will improve RVV codegen a
lot.
Thanks.
juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
From: Richard Biener
Date: 2023-07-31 17:26
To: Juzhe-Zhong
CC: gcc-patches; richard.sandiford
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Support CALL vectorization for COND_LEN_*
On Fri, 28 Jul 2023, Juzhe-Zhong wrote:
> Hi, Richard and Richi.
>
> Base on the suggestions from Richard:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-July/625396.html
>
> This patch choose (1) approach that Richard provided, meaning:
>
> RVV implements cond_* optabs as expanders. RVV therefore supports
> both IFN_COND_ADD and IFN_COND_LEN_ADD. No dummy length arguments
> are needed at the gimple level.
>
> Such approach can make codes much cleaner and reasonable.
>
> Consider this following case:
> void foo (float * __restrict a, float * __restrict b, int * __restrict cond,
> int n)
> {
> for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
> if (cond[i])
> a[i] = b[i] + a[i];
> }
>
>
> Output of RISC-V (32-bits) gcc (trunk) (Compiler #3)
> :5:21: missed: couldn't vectorize loop
> :5:21: missed: not vectorized: control flow in loop.
>
> ARM SVE:
>
> ...
> mask__27.10_51 = vect__4.9_49 != { 0, ... };
> ...
> vec_mask_and_55 = loop_mask_49 & mask__27.10_51;
> ...
> vect__9.17_62 = .COND_ADD (vec_
