Hi Kewen,
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 02:28:28PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/altivec.md
> +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/altivec.md
> @@ -1666,6 +1666,60 @@
> "vrl<VI_char> %0,%1,%2"
> [(set_attr "type" "vecsimple")])
>
> +;; Here these vrl<VI2>_and are for vrotr<mode>3 expansion.
> +;; since SHIFT_COUNT_TRUNCATED is set as zero, to append one explicit
> +;; AND to indicate truncation but emit vrl<VI_char> insn.
> +(define_insn "vrlv2di_and"
> + [(set (match_operand:V2DI 0 "register_operand" "=v")
> + (and:V2DI
> + (rotate:V2DI (match_operand:V2DI 1 "register_operand" "v")
> + (match_operand:V2DI 2 "register_operand" "v"))
> + (const_vector:V2DI [(const_int 63) (const_int 63)])))]
> + "VECTOR_UNIT_P8_VECTOR_P (V2DImode)"
> + "vrld %0,%1,%2"
> + [(set_attr "type" "vecsimple")])
"vrlv2di_and" is an a bit unhappy name, we have a "vrlv" intruction.
Just something like "rotatev2di_something", maybe?
Do we have something similar for non-rotate vector shifts, already? We
probably should, so please keep that in mind for naming things.
"vrlv2di_and" sounds like you first do the rotate, and then on what
that results in you do the and. And that is what the pattern does,
too. But this is wrong: it should mask off all but the lower bits
of operand 2, instead.
> +(define_insn "vrlv4si_and"
> + [(set (match_operand:V4SI 0 "register_operand" "=v")
> + (and:V4SI
> + (rotate:V4SI (match_operand:V4SI 1 "register_operand" "v")
> + (match_operand:V4SI 2 "register_operand" "v"))
> + (const_vector:V4SI [(const_int 31) (const_int 31)
> + (const_int 31) (const_int 31)])))]
> + "VECTOR_UNIT_ALTIVEC_P (V4SImode)"
> + "vrlw %0,%1,%2"
> + [(set_attr "type" "vecsimple")])
> +
> +(define_insn "vrlv8hi_and"
> + [(set (match_operand:V8HI 0 "register_operand" "=v")
> + (and:V8HI
> + (rotate:V8HI (match_operand:V8HI 1 "register_operand" "v")
> + (match_operand:V8HI 2 "register_operand" "v"))
> + (const_vector:V8HI [(const_int 15) (const_int 15)
> + (const_int 15) (const_int 15)
> + (const_int 15) (const_int 15)
> + (const_int 15) (const_int 15)])))]
> + "VECTOR_UNIT_ALTIVEC_P (V8HImode)"
> + "vrlh %0,%1,%2"
> + [(set_attr "type" "vecsimple")])
> +
> +(define_insn "vrlv16qi_and"
> + [(set (match_operand:V16QI 0 "register_operand" "=v")
> + (and:V16QI
> + (rotate:V16QI (match_operand:V16QI 1 "register_operand" "v")
> + (match_operand:V16QI 2 "register_operand" "v"))
> + (const_vector:V16QI [(const_int 7) (const_int 7)
> + (const_int 7) (const_int 7)
> + (const_int 7) (const_int 7)
> + (const_int 7) (const_int 7)
> + (const_int 7) (const_int 7)
> + (const_int 7) (const_int 7)
> + (const_int 7) (const_int 7)
> + (const_int 7) (const_int 7)])))]
> + "VECTOR_UNIT_ALTIVEC_P (V16QImode)"
> + "vrlb %0,%1,%2"
> + [(set_attr "type" "vecsimple")])
All the patterns can be merged into one (using some code_iterator). That
can be a later improvement.
> +;; Return 1 if op is a vector register that operates on integer vectors
> +;; or if op is a const vector with integer vector modes.
> +(define_predicate "vint_reg_or_const_vector"
> + (match_code "reg,subreg,const_vector")
> +{
> + if (GET_CODE (op) == CONST_VECTOR && GET_MODE_CLASS (mode) ==
> MODE_VECTOR_INT)
> + return 1;
> +
> + return vint_operand (op, mode);
> +})
Hrm, I don't like this name very much. Why is just vint_operand not
enough for what you use this for?
> +;; Expanders for rotatert to make use of vrotl
> +(define_expand "vrotr<mode>3"
> + [(set (match_operand:VEC_I 0 "vint_operand")
> + (rotatert:VEC_I (match_operand:VEC_I 1 "vint_operand")
> + (match_operand:VEC_I 2 "vint_reg_or_const_vector")))]
> + "VECTOR_UNIT_ALTIVEC_OR_VSX_P (<MODE>mode)"
> +{
> + rtx rot_count = gen_reg_rtx (<MODE>mode);
> + if (GET_CODE (operands[2]) == CONST_VECTOR)
> + {
> + machine_mode inner_mode = GET_MODE_INNER (<MODE>mode);
> + unsigned int bits = GET_MODE_PRECISION (inner_mode);
> + rtx mask_vec = gen_const_vec_duplicate (<MODE>mode, GEN_INT (bits -
> 1));
> + rtx imm_vec
> + = simplify_const_unary_operation (NEG, <MODE>mode, operands[2],
(The "=" goes on the previous line).
> + GET_MODE (operands[2]));
> + imm_vec
> + = simplify_const_binary_operation (AND, <MODE>mode, imm_vec, mask_vec);
> + rot_count = force_reg (<MODE>mode, imm_vec);
> + emit_insn (gen_vrotl<mode>3 (operands[0], operands[1], rot_count));
> + }
> + else
> + {
> + emit_insn (gen_neg<mode>2 (rot_count, operands[2]));
> + emit_insn (gen_vrl<mode>_and (operands[0], operands[1], rot_count));
> + }
> + DONE;
> +})
Why do you have to emit as the "and" form here? Emitting the "bare"
rotate should work just as well here?
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/vec_rotate-1.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
> +/* { dg-options "-O3" } */
> +/* { dg-require-effective-target powerpc_vsx_ok } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler {\mvrld\M} } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler {\mvrlw\M} } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler {\mvrlh\M} } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler {\mvrlb\M} } } */
You need to generate code for whatever cpu introduced those insns,
if you expect those to be generated ;-)
vsx_ok isn't needed.
Segher
