On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 9:12 AM Richard Biener
<richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 5:39 PM Ilya Leoshkevich <i...@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Am 22.08.2019 um 15:45 schrieb Ilya Leoshkevich <i...@linux.ibm.com>:
> > >
> > > Bootstrap and regtest running on x86_64-redhat-linux and
> > > s390x-redhat-linux.
> > >
> > > This patch series adds signaling FP comparison support (both scalar and
> > > vector) to s390 backend.
> >
> > I'm running into a problem on ppc64 with this patch, and it would be
> > great if someone could help me figure out the best way to resolve it.
> >
> > vector36.C test is failing because gimplifier produces the following
> >
> > _5 = _4 > { 2.0e+0, 2.0e+0, 2.0e+0, 2.0e+0 };
> > _6 = VEC_COND_EXPR <_5, { -1, -1, -1, -1 }, { 0, 0, 0, 0 }>;
> >
> > from
> >
> > VEC_COND_EXPR < (*b > { 2.0e+0, 2.0e+0, 2.0e+0, 2.0e+0 }) ,
> > { -1, -1, -1, -1 } ,
> > { 0, 0, 0, 0 } >
> >
> > Since the comparison tree code is now hidden behind a temporary, my code
> > does not have anything to pass to the backend. The reason for creating
> > a temporary is that the comparison can trap, and so the following check
> > in gimplify_expr fails:
> >
> > if (gimple_seq_empty_p (internal_post) && (*gimple_test_f) (*expr_p))
> > goto out;
> >
> > gimple_test_f is is_gimple_condexpr, and it eventually calls
> > operation_could_trap_p (GT).
> >
> > My current solution is to simply state that backend does not support
> > SSA_NAME in vector comparisons, however, I don't like it, since it may
> > cause performance regressions due to having to fall back to scalar
> > comparisons.
> >
> > I was thinking about two other possible solutions:
> >
> > 1. Change the gimplifier to allow trapping vector comparisons. That's
> > a bit complicated, because tree_could_throw_p checks not only for
> > floating point traps, but also e.g. for array index out of bounds
> > traps. So I would have to create a tree_could_throw_p version which
> > disregards specific kinds of traps.
> >
> > 2. Change expand_vector_condition to follow SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT and use
> > its tree_code instead of SSA_NAME. The potential problem I see with
> > this is that there appears to be no guarantee that _5 will be inlined
> > into _6 at a later point. So if we say that we don't need to fall
> > back to scalar comparisons based on availability of vector >
> > instruction and inlining does not happen, then what's actually will
> > be required is vector selection (vsel on S/390), which might not be
> > available in general case.
> >
> > What would be a better way to proceed here?
>
> On GIMPLE there isn't a good reason to split out trapping comparisons
> from [VEC_]COND_EXPR - the gimplifier does this for GIMPLE_CONDs
> where it is important because we'd have no way to represent EH info
> when not done. It might be a bit awkward to preserve EH across RTL
> expansion though in case the [VEC_]COND_EXPR are not expanded
> as a single pattern, but I'm not sure.
>
> To go this route you'd have to split the is_gimple_condexpr check
> I guess and eventually users turning [VEC_]COND_EXPR into conditional
> code (do we have any?) have to be extra careful then.
Oh, btw - the fact that we have an expression embedded in [VEC_]COND_EXPR
is something that bothers me for quite some time already and it makes
things like VN awkward and GIMPLE fincky. We've discussed alternatives
to dead with the simplest being moving the comparison out to a separate
stmt and others like having four operand [VEC_]COND_{EQ,NE,...}_EXPR
codes or simply treating {EQ,NE,...}_EXPR as quarternary on GIMPLE
with either optional 3rd and 4th operand (defaulting to boolean_true/false_node)
or always explicit ones (and thus dropping [VEC_]COND_EXPR).
What does LLVM do here?
Richard.
> Richard.
>
> >
