On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 4:01 AM Segher Boessenkool
<seg...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 04:40:53PM +0800, Hongtao Liu wrote:
> >   For rtx like
> >   (vec_select:V2SI (subreg:V4SI (inner:V2SI) 0)
> >                    (parallel [(const_int 0) (const_int 1)]))
> >  it could be simplified as inner.
>
> You could even simplify any vec_select of a subreg of X to just a
> vec_select of X, by changing the selection vector a bit (well, only do

Yes, when SUBREG_BYTE of trueop0 is not 0, we need to add offset to selection.

> this if that is a constant vector, I suppose).  Not just for paradoxical
> subregs either, just for *all* subregs.
>

Yes, and only when X has the same inner mode and more elements.

> > gcc/ChangeLog
> >         PR rtl-optimization/97249
> >         * simplify-rtx.c (simplify_binary_operation_1): Simplify
> >         vec_select of paradoxical subreg.
> >
> > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
> >
> >         * gcc.target/i386/pr97249-1.c: New test.
>
> > +       /* For cases like
> > +          (vec_select:V2SI (subreg:V4SI (inner:V2SI) 0)
> > +                           (parallel [(const_int 0) (const_int 1)])).
> > +          return inner directly.  */
> > +       if (GET_CODE (trueop0) == SUBREG
> > +           && paradoxical_subreg_p (trueop0)
> > +           && mode == GET_MODE (XEXP (trueop0, 0))
> > +           && (GET_MODE_NUNITS (GET_MODE (trueop0))).is_constant (&l0)
> > +           && (GET_MODE_NUNITS (mode)).is_constant (&l1)
> > +           && l0 % l1 == 0)
>
> Why this?  Why does the number of elements of the input have to divide
> that of the output?
>

Removed, also add condition for my upper comments.

> > +         {
> > +           gcc_assert (known_eq (XVECLEN (trueop1, 0), l1));
> > +           unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT expect = (HOST_WIDE_INT_1U << l1) - 1;
> > +           unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT sel = 0;
> > +           int i = 0;
> > +           for (;i != l1; i++)
>
>   for (int i = 0; i != l1; i++)
>
> > +             {
> > +               rtx j = XVECEXP (trueop1, 0, i);
> > +               if (!CONST_INT_P (j))
> > +                 break;
> > +               sel |= HOST_WIDE_INT_1U << UINTVAL (j);
> > +             }
> > +           /* ??? Need to simplify XEXP (trueop0, 0) here.  */
> > +           if (sel == expect)
> > +             return XEXP (trueop0, 0);
> > +         }
> >       }
>
> If you just handle the much more generic case, all the other vec_select
> simplifications can be done as well, not just this one.
>

Yes, changed, also selection should be inside the elements of X.

> > +/* PR target/97249  */
> > +/* { dg-do compile } */
> > +/* { dg-options "-mavx2 -O3 -masm=att" } */
> > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "vpmovzxbw\[ 
> > \t\]+\\\(\[^\n\]*%xmm\[0-9\](?:\n|\[ \t\]+#)" 2 } } */
> > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "vpmovzxwd\[ 
> > \t\]+\\\(\[^\n\]*%xmm\[0-9\](?:\n|\[ \t\]+#)" 2 } } */
> > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "vpmovzxdq\[ 
> > \t\]+\\\(\[^\n\]*%xmm\[0-9\](?:\n|\[ \t\]+#)" 2 } } */
>
> I don't know enough about the x86 backend to know if this is exactly
> what you need in the testsuite.  I do know a case of backslashitis when
> I see one though -- you might want to use {} instead of "", and perhaps
> \m and \M and \s etc.  And to make sure things are on one line, don't do
> all that nastiness with [^\n], just start the RE with (?n) :-)
>

Yes, changed and it's very clean with usage of (?n) and {}.

>
> Segher

Update patch.

-- 
BR,
Hongtao
From df71eb46e394e5b778c69e9e8f25b301997e365d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: liuhongt <hongtao....@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 15:35:29 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] Simplify vec_select of a subreg of X to just a vec_select of
 X.

gcc/ChangeLog
	PR rtl-optimization/97249
	* simplify-rtx.c (simplify_binary_operation_1): Simplify
	vec_select of a subreg of X to a vec_select of X when
	available.

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog

	* gcc.target/i386/pr97249-1.c: New test.
---
 gcc/simplify-rtx.c                        | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++
 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr97249-1.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 74 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr97249-1.c

diff --git a/gcc/simplify-rtx.c b/gcc/simplify-rtx.c
index 869f0d11b2e..8a10b6cf4d5 100644
--- a/gcc/simplify-rtx.c
+++ b/gcc/simplify-rtx.c
@@ -4170,6 +4170,50 @@ simplify_binary_operation_1 (enum rtx_code code, machine_mode mode,
 		    return subop1;
 		}
 	    }
+
+	  /* Simplify vec_select of a subreg of X to just a vec_select of X
+	     when available.  */
+	  int l2;
+	  if (GET_CODE (trueop0) == SUBREG
+	      && (GET_MODE_INNER (mode)
+		  == GET_MODE_INNER (GET_MODE (XEXP (trueop0, 0))))
+	      && (GET_MODE_NUNITS (GET_MODE (trueop0))).is_constant (&l0)
+	      && (GET_MODE_NUNITS (mode)).is_constant (&l1)
+	      && (GET_MODE_NUNITS (GET_MODE (XEXP (trueop0, 0))))
+		  .is_constant (&l2)
+	      && known_le (l1, l2))
+	    {
+	      unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT subreg_offset = 0;
+	      gcc_assert (known_eq (XVECLEN (trueop1, 0), l1));
+	      gcc_assert (can_div_trunc_p (SUBREG_BYTE (trueop0),
+					   GET_MODE_SIZE (GET_MODE_INNER (mode)),
+					   &subreg_offset));
+	      bool success = true;
+	      for (int i = 0;i != l1; i++)
+		{
+		  rtx j = XVECEXP (trueop1, 0, i);
+		  if (!CONST_INT_P (j)
+		      || known_ge (UINTVAL (j), l2 - subreg_offset))
+		    {
+		      success = false;
+		      break;
+		    }
+		}
+	      if (success)
+		{
+		  rtx par = trueop1;
+		  if (subreg_offset)
+		    {
+		      rtvec vec = rtvec_alloc (l1);
+		      for (int i = 0; i < l1; i++)
+			RTVEC_ELT (vec, i)
+			  = GEN_INT (INTVAL (XVECEXP (trueop1, 0, i)
+					     + subreg_offset));
+		      par = gen_rtx_PARALLEL (VOIDmode, vec);
+		    }
+		  return gen_rtx_VEC_SELECT (mode, XEXP (trueop0, 0), par);
+		}
+	    }
 	}
 
       if (XVECLEN (trueop1, 0) == 1
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr97249-1.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr97249-1.c
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..4478a34a9f8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr97249-1.c
@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+/* PR target/97249  */
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-mavx2 -O3 -masm=att" } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {(?n)vpmovzxbw[ \t]+\(.*%xmm[0-9]} 2 } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {(?n)vpmovzxwd[ \t]+\(.*%xmm[0-9]} 2 } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {(?n)vpmovzxdq[ \t]+\(.*%xmm[0-9]} 2 } } */
+
+void
+foo (unsigned char* p1, unsigned char* p2, short* __restrict p3)
+{
+    for (int i = 0 ; i != 8; i++)
+     p3[i] = p1[i] + p2[i];
+     return;
+}
+
+void
+foo1 (unsigned short* p1, unsigned short* p2, int* __restrict p3)
+{
+    for (int i = 0 ; i != 4; i++)
+     p3[i] = p1[i] + p2[i];
+     return;
+}
+
+void
+foo2 (unsigned int* p1, unsigned int* p2, long long* __restrict p3)
+{
+    for (int i = 0 ; i != 2; i++)
+      p3[i] = (long long)p1[i] + (long long)p2[i];
+     return;
+}
-- 
2.18.1

Reply via email to