On Fri, 3 Jun 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 05:21:37PM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> > > --- gcc/tree-vect-slp.c.jj 2016-01-08 21:45:57.000000000 +0100
> > > +++ gcc/tree-vect-slp.c 2016-01-11 12:07:19.633366712 +0100
> > > @@ -2999,12 +2999,9 @@ vect_get_constant_vectors (tree op, slp_
> > > gimple *init_stmt;
> > > if (VECTOR_BOOLEAN_TYPE_P (vector_type))
> > > {
> > > - gcc_assert (fold_convertible_p (TREE_TYPE
> > > (vector_type),
> > > - op));
> > > + gcc_assert (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (op)));
> > > init_stmt = gimple_build_assign (new_temp,
> > > NOP_EXPR, op);
> >
> > In vect_init_vector we had to introduce COND_EXPR to choose between 0 and
> > -1 for
> > boolean vectors. Shouldn't we do similar in SLP?
>
> Apparently the answer to this is YES.
>
> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk/6.2?
>
> 2016-06-03 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
>
> PR tree-optimization/71259
> * tree-vect-slp.c (vect_get_constant_vectors): For
> VECTOR_BOOLEAN_TYPE_P, return all ones constant instead of
> one for constant op, and use COND_EXPR for non-constant.
>
> * gcc.dg/vect/pr71259.c: New test.
>
> --- gcc/tree-vect-slp.c.jj 2016-05-24 10:56:02.000000000 +0200
> +++ gcc/tree-vect-slp.c 2016-06-03 17:01:12.740955935 +0200
> @@ -3056,7 +3056,7 @@ vect_get_constant_vectors (tree op, slp_
> if (integer_zerop (op))
> op = build_int_cst (TREE_TYPE (vector_type), 0);
> else if (integer_onep (op))
> - op = build_int_cst (TREE_TYPE (vector_type), 1);
> + op = build_all_ones_cst (TREE_TYPE (vector_type));
> else
> gcc_unreachable ();
> }
> @@ -3071,8 +3071,14 @@ vect_get_constant_vectors (tree op, slp_
> gimple *init_stmt;
> if (VECTOR_BOOLEAN_TYPE_P (vector_type))
> {
> + tree true_val
> + = build_all_ones_cst (TREE_TYPE (vector_type));
> + tree false_val
> + = build_zero_cst (TREE_TYPE (vector_type));
> gcc_assert (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (op)));
> - init_stmt = gimple_build_assign (new_temp, NOP_EXPR, op);
> + init_stmt = gimple_build_assign (new_temp, COND_EXPR,
> + op, true_val,
> + false_val);
So this ends up generating { a ? -1 : 0, b ? -1 : 0, ... }. That
might be less optimal than doing { a, b, ... } ? { -1, -1 ... } : { 0, 0,
.. }
though I'm not sure we can easily construct a "proper" vector boolean
from _Bool values either.
Thus the patch is ok.
Thanks,
Richard.
> }
> else
> {
> --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr71259.c.jj 2016-06-03 17:05:37.693475438
> +0200
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr71259.c 2016-06-03 17:05:32.418544731
> +0200
> @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
> +/* PR tree-optimization/71259 */
> +/* { dg-do run } */
> +/* { dg-options "-O3" } */
> +/* { dg-additional-options "-mavx" { target avx_runtime } } */
> +
> +#include "tree-vect.h"
> +
> +long a, b[1][44][2];
> +long long c[44][17][2];
> +
> +int
> +main ()
> +{
> + int i, j, k;
> + check_vect ();
> + asm volatile ("" : : : "memory");
> + for (i = 0; i < 44; i++)
> + for (j = 0; j < 17; j++)
> + for (k = 0; k < 2; k++)
> + c[i][j][k] = (30995740 >= *(k + *(j + *b)) != (a != 8)) -
> 5105075050047261684;
> + asm volatile ("" : : : "memory");
> + for (i = 0; i < 44; i++)
> + for (j = 0; j < 17; j++)
> + for (k = 0; k < 2; k++)
> + if (c[i][j][k] != -5105075050047261684)
> + __builtin_abort ();
> + return 0;
> +}
>
>
> Jakub
>
>
--
Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>
SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB
21284 (AG Nuernberg)
