On 05/18/2016 05:29 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 05/17/16 17:30, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
>> On 05/17/2016 02:22 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>>>> gcc.sum
>>>> Tests that now fail, but worked before:
>>>>
>>>> nvptx-none-run: gcc.c-torture/execute/20100316-1.c -Os execution
>>>> test
>>>> nvptx-none-run: gcc.c-torture/execute/20100708-1.c -O1 execution
>>>> test
>>>> nvptx-none-run: gcc.c-torture/execute/20100805-1.c -O0 execution
>>>> test
>>>> nvptx-none-run: gcc.dg/torture/pr52028.c -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
>>>> -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions execution test
>>>> nvptx-none-run: gcc.dg/torture/pr52028.c -O3 -g execution test
>>>>
>
> Please determine why these now fail.
Those were failing intermittently, at least on my desktop. I'll look
into that it next.
>> +(define_expand "sincossf3"
>> + [(set (match_operand:SF 0 "nvptx_register_operand" "=R")
>> + (unspec:SF [(match_operand:SF 2 "nvptx_register_operand" "R")]
>> + UNSPEC_COS))
>> + (set (match_operand:SF 1 "nvptx_register_operand" "=R")
>> + (unspec:SF [(match_dup 2)] UNSPEC_SIN))]
>> + "flag_unsafe_math_optimizations"
>> +{
>> + emit_insn (gen_sinsf2 (operands[1], operands[2]));
>> + emit_insn (gen_cossf2 (operands[0], operands[2]));
>> +
>> + DONE;
>> +})
>
> Why the emit_insn code? that seems to be replicating the RTL
> representation -- you're saying the same thing twice.
>
> Doesn't operands[2] need (conditionally) copying to a new register --
> what if it aliases operands[1]?
This patch does that now.
>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/nvptx/sincos-2.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
>> +/* { dg-do run } */
>> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -ffast-math" } */
>> +
>
> What is this test trying to test? I'm puzzled by it. (btw, don't use
> assert, either abort, exit(1) or return from main.)
My intent was to verify that I got the sin and cos arguments right,
i.e., make sure that this sincos expansion didn't mix up sin(x) with
cos(x). I guess I can create a test that uses vprintf and scans
dg-output for the proper results. But in this patch I just omitted that
test case altogether.
Is this patch ok for trunk?
Cesar
2016-05-18 Cesar Philippidis <ce...@codesourcery.com>
gcc/
* config/nvptx/nvptx.md (sincossf3): New pattern.
gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.target/nvptx/sincos.c: New test.
diff --git a/gcc/config/nvptx/nvptx.md b/gcc/config/nvptx/nvptx.md
index 33a4862..69bbb22 100644
--- a/gcc/config/nvptx/nvptx.md
+++ b/gcc/config/nvptx/nvptx.md
@@ -794,6 +794,24 @@
""
"%.\\tsqrt%#%t0\\t%0, %1;")
+(define_expand "sincossf3"
+ [(set (match_operand:SF 0 "nvptx_register_operand" "=R")
+ (unspec:SF [(match_operand:SF 2 "nvptx_register_operand" "R")]
+ UNSPEC_COS))
+ (set (match_operand:SF 1 "nvptx_register_operand" "=R")
+ (unspec:SF [(match_dup 2)] UNSPEC_SIN))]
+ "flag_unsafe_math_optimizations"
+{
+ if (REGNO (operands[0]) == REGNO (operands[2]))
+ {
+ rtx tmp = gen_reg_rtx (GET_MODE (operands[2]));
+ emit_insn (gen_rtx_SET (tmp, operands[2]));
+ emit_insn (gen_sinsf2 (operands[1], tmp));
+ emit_insn (gen_cossf2 (operands[0], tmp));
+ DONE;
+ }
+})
+
(define_insn "sinsf2"
[(set (match_operand:SF 0 "nvptx_register_operand" "=R")
(unspec:SF [(match_operand:SF 1 "nvptx_register_operand" "R")]
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/nvptx/sincos.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/nvptx/sincos.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..921ec41
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/nvptx/sincos.c
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -ffast-math" } */
+
+extern float sinf (float);
+extern float cosf (float);
+
+float
+sincos_add (float x)
+{
+ float s = sinf (x);
+ float c = cosf (x);
+
+ return s + c;
+}
+
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "sin.approx.f32" 1 } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "cos.approx.f32" 1 } } */
