2015-08-26 0:42 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com>: > On 08/21/2015 04:49 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >> >> >> I want a work with bitmasks to be expressed in a natural way using >> regular integer operations. Currently all masks manipulations are >> emulated via vector statements (mostly using a bunch of vec_cond). For >> complex predicates it may be nontrivial to transform it back to scalar >> masks and get an efficient code. Also the same vector may be used as >> both a mask and an integer vector. Things become more complex if you >> additionally have broadcasts and vector pack/unpack code. It also >> should be transformed into a scalar masks manipulations somehow. > > Or why not model the conversion at the gimple level using a CONVERT_EXPR? > In fact, the more I think about it, that seems to make more sense to me. > > We pick a canonical form for the mask, whatever it may be. We use that > canonical form and model conversions between it and the other form via > CONVERT_EXPR. We then let DOM/PRE find/eliminate the redundant conversions. > If it's not up to the task, we should really look into why and resolve. > > Yes, that does mean we have two forms which I'm not terribly happy about and > it means some target dependencies on what the masked vector operation looks > like (ie, does it accept a simple integer or vector mask), but I'm starting > to wonder if, as distasteful as I find it, it's the right thing to do.
If we have some special representation for masks in GIMPLE then we might not need any conversions. We could ask a target to define a MODE for this type and use it directly everywhere: directly compare into it, use it directly for masked loads and stores, AND, IOR, EQ etc. If that type is reserved for masks usage then you previous suggestion to transform masks into target specific form at GIMPLE->RTL phase should work fine. This would allow to support only a single masks representation in GIMPLE. Thanks, Ilya > >>> >>> But I don't like changing our IL so much as to allow 'integer' masks >>> everywhere. > > I'm warming up to that idea... > > jeff >
