H 1/2]middle-end: Fix wrong overmatching of div-bitmask
> by using new optabs [PR108583]
>
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 11:39:51AM -0500, Andrew MacLeod via Gcc-
> patches wrote:
> >
> >
> > Inheriting from operator_mult is also going to be hazardous because it
> > also
On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 11:39:51AM -0500, Andrew MacLeod via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
>
> Inheriting from operator_mult is also going to be hazardous because it also
> has an op1_range and op2_range...� you should at least define those and
> return VARYING to avoid other issues.� Same thing appli
via Gcc-patches ; nd
> >> ; rguent...@suse.de; j...@ventanamicro.com
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2]middle-end: Fix wrong overmatching of div-bitmask
> >> by using new optabs [PR108583]
> >>
> >> Tamar Christina writes:
> >> >> -Original Message-
t; >> To: Tamar Christina via Gcc-patches
>> >> Cc: Tamar Christina ; nd ;
>> >> rguent...@suse.de; j...@ventanamicro.com
>> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2]middle-end: Fix wrong overmatching of
>> >> div-bitmask by using new optabs [PR108583]
>>
Original Message-
> >> >> From: Richard Sandiford
> >> >> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 12:12 PM
> >> >> To: Tamar Christina
> >> >> Cc: Tamar Christina via Gcc-patches ; nd
> >> >> ; rguent...@suse.de; j...@ventanamicro.co
2:12 PM
>> >> To: Tamar Christina
>> >> Cc: Tamar Christina via Gcc-patches ; nd
>> >> ; rguent...@suse.de; j...@ventanamicro.com
>> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2]middle-end: Fix wrong overmatching of
>> >> div-bitmask by using new optabs
istina via Gcc-patches ; nd
> >> ; rguent...@suse.de; j...@ventanamicro.com
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2]middle-end: Fix wrong overmatching of
> >> div-bitmask by using new optabs [PR108583]
> >>
> >> Tamar Christina writes:
> >> > Hi,
> >&g
gt;> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2]middle-end: Fix wrong overmatching of div-bitmask
>> by using new optabs [PR108583]
>>
>> Tamar Christina writes:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> >> > I avoided open coding it with add and shift because it creates a 4
>> >
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Sandiford
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 12:12 PM
> To: Tamar Christina
> Cc: Tamar Christina via Gcc-patches ; nd
> ; rguent...@suse.de; j...@ventanamicro.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2]middle-end: Fix wrong overmatching of d
Tamar Christina writes:
> Hi,
>
>> > I avoided open coding it with add and shift because it creates a 4
>> > instructions (and shifts which are typically slow) dependency chain
>> > instead of a load and multiply. This change, unless the target is
>> > known to optimize it further is unlikely to
Hi,
> > I avoided open coding it with add and shift because it creates a 4
> > instructions (and shifts which are typically slow) dependency chain
> > instead of a load and multiply. This change, unless the target is
> > known to optimize it further is unlikely to be beneficial. And by the
> > t
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew MacLeod
> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2023 4:40 PM
> To: Tamar Christina ; Richard Biener
> ; Richard Sandiford
> Cc: Tamar Christina via Gcc-patches ; nd
> ; j...@ventanamicro.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2]middle-end: Fix w
On 2/23/23 03:36, Tamar Christina wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Oh yeah, and in case you haven't figured it out on your own, you'll
have to remove WIDEN_MULT_EXPR from the range-ops init table. This
non-standard mechanism only gets checked if there is no standard
range-op table entry for the tree code :
Hi Andrew,
> >> Oh yeah, and in case you haven't figured it out on your own, you'll
> >> have to remove WIDEN_MULT_EXPR from the range-ops init table. This
> >> non-standard mechanism only gets checked if there is no standard
> >> range-op table entry for the tree code :-P
> >>
> > Hmm it looks
: Fix wrong overmatching of div-bitmask
by using new optabs [PR108583]
On 2/15/23 13:42, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 2/15/23 12:50, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 2/15/23 12:13, Tamar Christina wrote:
On 2/15/23 07:51, Tamar Christina wrote:
void
operator_plus::wi_fold (irange &r, tree
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew MacLeod
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 4:42 PM
> To: Tamar Christina ; Richard Biener
> ; Richard Sandiford
> Cc: Tamar Christina via Gcc-patches ; nd
> ; j...@ventanamicro.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2]middle-end: Fix w
On 2/15/23 13:42, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 2/15/23 12:50, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 2/15/23 12:13, Tamar Christina wrote:
On 2/15/23 07:51, Tamar Christina wrote:
void
operator_plus::wi_fold (irange &r, tree type,
const wide_int &lh_lb, const wide_int &lh_ub,
On 2/22/23 08:06, Tamar Christina wrote:
Hi Andrew,
all the range-op integer code is in gcc/range-op.cc. As this is a basic
binary operation, you should be able to get away with implementing a
single routine, wi_fold () which adds 2 wide int bounds together and
returns a result. THis si th
Hi Andrew,
>
> all the range-op integer code is in gcc/range-op.cc. As this is a basic
> binary operation, you should be able to get away with implementing a
> single routine, wi_fold () which adds 2 wide int bounds together and
> returns a result. THis si the implelemntaion for operator_plus
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew MacLeod
> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2023 6:43 PM
> To: Tamar Christina ; Richard Biener
> ; Richard Sandiford
> Cc: Tamar Christina via Gcc-patches ; nd
> ; j...@ventanamicro.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2]middle-end: Fix w
On 2/15/23 12:50, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 2/15/23 12:13, Tamar Christina wrote:
On 2/15/23 07:51, Tamar Christina wrote:
void
operator_plus::wi_fold (irange &r, tree type,
const wide_int &lh_lb, const wide_int &lh_ub,
const wide_int &rh_lb, co
On 2/15/23 12:13, Tamar Christina wrote:
On 2/15/23 07:51, Tamar Christina wrote:
Thanks, lots of useful context there.
This second pattern replaces the above into:
_6 = _3 +w level_14(D);
_7 = _6 / 255;
_8 = (unsigned char) _7;
Thus removing the need to promote before the additi
> On 2/15/23 07:51, Tamar Christina wrote:
> >> In any case, if you disagree I don’t' really see a way forward
> >> aside from making this its own pattern running it before the
> >> overwidening
> >>> pattern.
> > I think we should look to see if ranger can be persuaded to
> > p
On 2/15/23 07:51, Tamar Christina wrote:
In any case, if you disagree I don’t' really see a way forward
aside from making this its own pattern running it before the
overwidening
pattern.
I think we should look to see if ranger can be persuaded to provide
the range of the 16-bit addition, even
> > >>> In any case, if you disagree I don’t' really see a way forward
> > >>> aside from making this its own pattern running it before the
> > >>> overwidening
> > pattern.
> > >> I think we should look to see if ranger can be persuaded to provide
> > >> the range of the 16-bit addition, even thou
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew MacLeod
> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2023 8:59 PM
> To: Richard Biener ; Richard Sandiford
>
> Cc: Tamar Christina ; Tamar Christina via Gcc-
> patches ; nd ;
> j...@ventanamicro.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2]middle-end: Fi
On 2/10/23 13:34, Richard Biener wrote:
In any case, if you disagree I don’t' really see a way forward aside from
making this its own pattern
running it before the overwidening pattern.
I think we should look to see if ranger can be persuaded to provide the
range of the 16-bit addition, eve
gt; Cc: Tamar Christina via Gcc-patches ; nd
>>> ; rguent...@suse.de; j...@ventanamicro.com
>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2]middle-end: Fix wrong overmatching of div-bitmask
>>> by using new optabs [PR108583]
>>>
>>> Tamar Christina writes:
>>>>
t; >> To: Tamar Christina
>> >> Cc: Tamar Christina via Gcc-patches ; nd
>> >> ; rguent...@suse.de; j...@ventanamicro.com
>> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2]middle-end: Fix wrong overmatching of
>> >> div-bitmask by using new optabs [PR108583]
t; >> >> From: Richard Sandiford
> >> >> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2023 3:57 PM
> >> >> To: Tamar Christina
> >> >> Cc: Tamar Christina via Gcc-patches ; nd
> >> >> ; rguent...@suse.de; j...@ventanamicro.com
> >
Richard Sandiford writes:
> Final pattern statements (those not in DEF_SEQ) always have the same
> type and value as the original statements. We wouldn't see mismatched
> precisions if we were only looking at final pattern statements.
>
> Like you say, the 16-bit addition didn't exist before vect
t; >> To: Tamar Christina
>> >> Cc: Tamar Christina via Gcc-patches ; nd
>> >> ; rguent...@suse.de; j...@ventanamicro.com
>> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2]middle-end: Fix wrong overmatching of
>> >&
tches ; nd
> >> ; rguent...@suse.de; j...@ventanamicro.com
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2]middle-end: Fix wrong overmatching of
> >> div-bitmask by using new optabs [PR108583]
> >>
> >> Tamar Christina writes:
> >> >> > a/gcc/tree-vect-p
ject: Re: [PATCH 1/2]middle-end: Fix wrong overmatching of div-bitmask
>> by using new optabs [PR108583]
>>
>> Tamar Christina writes:
>> >> > a/gcc/tree-vect-patterns.cc b/gcc/tree-vect-patterns.cc index
>> >> >
>> >>
>> 6934aebc69f231af2466
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Sandiford
> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2023 3:57 PM
> To: Tamar Christina
> Cc: Tamar Christina via Gcc-patches ; nd
> ; rguent...@suse.de; j...@ventanamicro.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2]middle-end: Fix wrong overmatching of d
Tamar Christina writes:
>> > a/gcc/tree-vect-patterns.cc b/gcc/tree-vect-patterns.cc index
>> >
>> 6934aebc69f231af24668f0a1c3d140e97f55487..e39d7e6b362ef44eb2fc467f33
>> 69
>> > de2afea139d6 100644
>> > --- a/gcc/tree-vect-patterns.cc
>> > +++ b/gcc/tree-vect-patterns.cc
>> > @@ -3914,12 +3914,82
stina ; nd ;
> >> rguent...@suse.de; j...@ventanamicro.com
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2]middle-end: Fix wrong overmatching of
> >> div-bitmask by using new optabs [PR108583]
> >>
> >> I think I'm misunderstanding, but: it seems like we're treating th
ject: Re: [PATCH 1/2]middle-end: Fix wrong overmatching of div-bitmask
>> by using new optabs [PR108583]
>>
>> I think I'm misunderstanding, but: it seems like we're treating the add
>> highpart optabs as companions to the mul highpart optabs. But AIUI, the add
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Sandiford
> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2023 1:36 PM
> To: Tamar Christina via Gcc-patches
> Cc: Tamar Christina ; nd ;
> rguent...@suse.de; j...@ventanamicro.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2]middle-end: Fix wrong overmatching of d
On Fri, 10 Feb 2023, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> I think I'm misunderstanding, but: it seems like we're treating the
> add highpart optabs as companions to the mul highpart optabs. But AIUI,
> the add highpart optab is used such that, for an N-bit mode, we do
> an N-bit addition followed by a shif
I think I'm misunderstanding, but: it seems like we're treating the
add highpart optabs as companions to the mul highpart optabs. But AIUI,
the add highpart optab is used such that, for an N-bit mode, we do
an N-bit addition followed by a shift by N/2. Is that right?
The mul highpart optabs inste
On Thu, 9 Feb 2023, Tamar Christina wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> As discussed in the ticket, this replaces the approach for optimizing the
> div by bitmask operation from a hook into optabs implemented through
> add_highpart.
>
> In order to be able to use this we need to check whether the current preci
Oops, realizes I forgot to fill in the test results, there were no issues 😊
> -Original Message-
> From: Gcc-patches bounces+tamar.christina=arm@gcc.gnu.org> On Behalf Of Tamar
> Christina via Gcc-patches
> Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2023 5:17 PM
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: n
43 matches
Mail list logo
