Prathamesh Kulkarni <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> writes:
> On Thu, 12 May 2022 at 16:15, Richard Sandiford
> <richard.sandif...@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>> Prathamesh Kulkarni <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> writes:
>> > On Wed, 11 May 2022 at 12:44, Richard Sandiford
>> > <richard.sandif...@arm.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Prathamesh Kulkarni <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> writes:
>> >> > On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 16:00, Richard Sandiford
>> >> > <richard.sandif...@arm.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Prathamesh Kulkarni <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> writes:
>> >> >> > diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-sve-builtins-base.cc
>> >> >> > b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-sve-builtins-base.cc
>> >> >> > index c24c0548724..1ef4ea2087b 100644
>> >> >> > --- a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-sve-builtins-base.cc
>> >> >> > +++ b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-sve-builtins-base.cc
>> >> >> > @@ -44,6 +44,14 @@
>> >> >> > #include "aarch64-sve-builtins-shapes.h"
>> >> >> > #include "aarch64-sve-builtins-base.h"
>> >> >> > #include "aarch64-sve-builtins-functions.h"
>> >> >> > +#include "aarch64-builtins.h"
>> >> >> > +#include "gimple-ssa.h"
>> >> >> > +#include "tree-phinodes.h"
>> >> >> > +#include "tree-ssa-operands.h"
>> >> >> > +#include "ssa-iterators.h"
>> >> >> > +#include "stringpool.h"
>> >> >> > +#include "value-range.h"
>> >> >> > +#include "tree-ssanames.h"
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Minor, but: I think the preferred approach is to include "ssa.h"
>> >> >> rather than include some of these headers directly.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > using namespace aarch64_sve;
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > @@ -1207,6 +1215,56 @@ public:
>> >> >> > insn_code icode = code_for_aarch64_sve_ld1rq (e.vector_mode
>> >> >> > (0));
>> >> >> > return e.use_contiguous_load_insn (icode);
>> >> >> > }
>> >> >> > +
>> >> >> > + gimple *
>> >> >> > + fold (gimple_folder &f) const OVERRIDE
>> >> >> > + {
>> >> >> > + tree arg0 = gimple_call_arg (f.call, 0);
>> >> >> > + tree arg1 = gimple_call_arg (f.call, 1);
>> >> >> > +
>> >> >> > + /* Transform:
>> >> >> > + lhs = svld1rq ({-1, -1, ... }, arg1)
>> >> >> > + into:
>> >> >> > + tmp = mem_ref<int32x4_t> [(int * {ref-all}) arg1]
>> >> >> > + lhs = vec_perm_expr<tmp, tmp, {0, 1, 2, 3, ...}>.
>> >> >> > + on little endian target. */
>> >> >> > +
>> >> >> > + if (!BYTES_BIG_ENDIAN
>> >> >> > + && integer_all_onesp (arg0))
>> >> >> > + {
>> >> >> > + tree lhs = gimple_call_lhs (f.call);
>> >> >> > + auto simd_type = aarch64_get_simd_info_for_type (Int32x4_t);
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Does this work for other element sizes? I would have expected it
>> >> >> to be the (128-bit) Advanced SIMD vector associated with the same
>> >> >> element type as the SVE vector.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The testcase should cover more than just int32x4_t -> svint32_t,
>> >> >> just to be sure.
>> >> > In the attached patch, it obtains corresponding advsimd type with:
>> >> >
>> >> > tree eltype = TREE_TYPE (lhs_type);
>> >> > unsigned nunits = 128 / TREE_INT_CST_LOW (TYPE_SIZE (eltype));
>> >> > tree vectype = build_vector_type (eltype, nunits);
>> >> >
>> >> > While this seems to work with different element sizes, I am not sure if
>> >> > it's
>> >> > the correct approach ?
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, that looks correct. Other SVE code uses aarch64_vq_mode
>> >> to get the vector mode associated with a .Q “element”, so an
>> >> alternative would be:
>> >>
>> >> machine_mode vq_mode = aarch64_vq_mode (TYPE_MODE (eltype)).require
>> >> ();
>> >> tree vectype = build_vector_type_for_mode (eltype, vq_mode);
>> >>
>> >> which is more explicit about wanting an Advanced SIMD vector.
>> >>
>> >> >> > +
>> >> >> > + tree elt_ptr_type
>> >> >> > + = build_pointer_type_for_mode (simd_type.eltype, VOIDmode,
>> >> >> > true);
>> >> >> > + tree zero = build_zero_cst (elt_ptr_type);
>> >> >> > +
>> >> >> > + /* Use element type alignment. */
>> >> >> > + tree access_type
>> >> >> > + = build_aligned_type (simd_type.itype, TYPE_ALIGN
>> >> >> > (simd_type.eltype));
>> >> >> > +
>> >> >> > + tree tmp = make_ssa_name_fn (cfun, access_type, 0);
>> >> >> > + gimple *mem_ref_stmt
>> >> >> > + = gimple_build_assign (tmp, fold_build2 (MEM_REF,
>> >> >> > access_type, arg1, zero));
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Long line. Might be easier to format by assigning the fold_build2
>> >> >> result
>> >> >> to a temporary variable.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > + gsi_insert_before (f.gsi, mem_ref_stmt, GSI_SAME_STMT);
>> >> >> > +
>> >> >> > + tree mem_ref_lhs = gimple_get_lhs (mem_ref_stmt);
>> >> >> > + tree vectype = TREE_TYPE (mem_ref_lhs);
>> >> >> > + tree lhs_type = TREE_TYPE (lhs);
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Is this necessary? The code above supplied the types and I wouldn't
>> >> >> have expected them to change during the build process.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > +
>> >> >> > + int source_nelts = TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS (vectype).to_constant
>> >> >> > ();
>> >> >> > + vec_perm_builder sel (TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS (lhs_type),
>> >> >> > source_nelts, 1);
>> >> >> > + for (int i = 0; i < source_nelts; i++)
>> >> >> > + sel.quick_push (i);
>> >> >> > +
>> >> >> > + vec_perm_indices indices (sel, 1, source_nelts);
>> >> >> > + gcc_checking_assert (can_vec_perm_const_p (TYPE_MODE
>> >> >> > (lhs_type), indices));
>> >> >> > + tree mask = vec_perm_indices_to_tree (lhs_type, indices);
>> >> >> > + return gimple_build_assign (lhs, VEC_PERM_EXPR, mem_ref_lhs,
>> >> >> > mem_ref_lhs, mask);
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Nit: long line.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > + }
>> >> >> > +
>> >> >> > + return NULL;
>> >> >> > + }
>> >> >> > };
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > class svld1ro_impl : public load_replicate
>> >> >> > diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.cc
>> >> >> > b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.cc
>> >> >> > index f650abbc4ce..47810fec804 100644
>> >> >> > --- a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.cc
>> >> >> > +++ b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.cc
>> >> >> > @@ -23969,6 +23969,35 @@ aarch64_evpc_sve_tbl (struct
>> >> >> > expand_vec_perm_d *d)
>> >> >> > return true;
>> >> >> > }
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > +/* Try to implement D using SVE dup instruction. */
>> >> >> > +
>> >> >> > +static bool
>> >> >> > +aarch64_evpc_sve_dup (struct expand_vec_perm_d *d)
>> >> >> > +{
>> >> >> > + if (BYTES_BIG_ENDIAN
>> >> >> > + || d->perm.length ().is_constant ()
>> >> >> > + || !d->one_vector_p
>> >> >> > + || d->target == NULL
>> >> >> > + || d->op0 == NULL
>> >> >>
>> >> >> These last two lines mean that we always return false for d->testing.
>> >> >> The idea instead is that the return value should be the same for both
>> >> >> d->testing and !d->testing. The difference is that for !d->testing we
>> >> >> also emit code to do the permute.
>> >>
>> >> It doesn't look like the new patch addresses this. There should be
>> >> no checks for/uses of “d->target” and “d->op0” until after:
>> >>
>> >> if (d->testing_p)
>> >> return true;
>> >>
>> >> This...
>> >>
>> >> >> > + || GET_MODE_NUNITS (GET_MODE (d->target)).is_constant ()
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Sorry, I've forgotten the context now, but: these positive tests
>> >> >> for is_constant surprised me. Do we really only want to do this
>> >> >> for variable-length SVE code generation, rather than fixed-length?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > + || !GET_MODE_NUNITS (GET_MODE (d->op0)).is_constant ())
>> >> >> > + return false;
>> >> >> > +
>> >> >> > + if (d->testing_p)
>> >> >> > + return true;
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This should happen after the later tests, once we're sure that the
>> >> >> permute vector has the right form. If the issue is that op0 isn't
>> >> >> provided for testing then I think the hook needs to be passed the
>> >> >> input mode alongside the result mode.
>> >>
>> >> ...was my guess about why the checks were there.
>> > Ah right sorry. IIUC, if d->testing is true, then d->op0 could be NULL ?
>> > In that case, how do we obtain input mode ?
>>
>> Well, like I say, I think we might need to extend the vec_perm_const
>> hook interface so that it gets passed the input mode, now that that
>> isn't necessarily the same as the output mode.
>>
>> It would be good to do that as a separate prepatch, since it would
>> affect other targets too. And for safety, that patch should make all
>> existing implementations of the hook return false if the modes aren't
>> equal, including for aarch64. The current patch can then make the
>> aarch64 hook treat the dup case as an exception.
> Hi Richard,
> I have attached updated patch, which tries to address above suggestions.
> I had a question about couple of things:
> (1) The patch resulted in ICE for float operands, because we were
> using lhs_type to build mask, which is float vector type.
> So I adjusted the patch to make mask vector of integer_type_node with
> length == length(lhs_type) if lhs has float vector type.
> Does that look OK ?
Let's use:
build_vector_type (ssizetype, lhs_len)
unconditionally, even for integers.
> (2) Moved check for d->vmode != op_mode (and only checking for dup in
> that case), inside vec_perm_const_1,
> since it does some initial bookkeeping (like swapping operands),
> before calling respective functions.
> Does that look OK ?
>
> Thanks,
> Prathamesh
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Richard
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-sve-builtins-base.cc
> b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-sve-builtins-base.cc
> index bee410929bd..48e849bec34 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-sve-builtins-base.cc
> +++ b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-sve-builtins-base.cc
> @@ -44,6 +44,7 @@
> #include "aarch64-sve-builtins-shapes.h"
> #include "aarch64-sve-builtins-base.h"
> #include "aarch64-sve-builtins-functions.h"
> +#include "ssa.h"
>
> using namespace aarch64_sve;
>
> @@ -1207,6 +1208,66 @@ public:
> insn_code icode = code_for_aarch64_sve_ld1rq (e.vector_mode (0));
> return e.use_contiguous_load_insn (icode);
> }
> +
> + gimple *
> + fold (gimple_folder &f) const override
> + {
> + tree arg0 = gimple_call_arg (f.call, 0);
> + tree arg1 = gimple_call_arg (f.call, 1);
> +
> + /* Transform:
> + lhs = svld1rq ({-1, -1, ... }, arg1)
> + into:
> + tmp = mem_ref<vectype> [(int * {ref-all}) arg1]
> + lhs = vec_perm_expr<tmp, tmp, {0, 1, 2, 3, ...}>.
> + on little endian target.
> + vectype is the corresponding ADVSIMD type. */
> +
> + if (!BYTES_BIG_ENDIAN
> + && integer_all_onesp (arg0))
> + {
> + tree lhs = gimple_call_lhs (f.call);
> + tree lhs_type = TREE_TYPE (lhs);
> + poly_uint64 lhs_len = TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS (lhs_type);
> + tree eltype = TREE_TYPE (lhs_type);
> +
> + scalar_mode elmode = GET_MODE_INNER (TYPE_MODE (lhs_type));
> + machine_mode vq_mode = aarch64_vq_mode (elmode).require ();
> + tree vectype = build_vector_type_for_mode (eltype, vq_mode);
> +
> + tree elt_ptr_type
> + = build_pointer_type_for_mode (eltype, VOIDmode, true);
> + tree zero = build_zero_cst (elt_ptr_type);
> +
> + /* Use element type alignment. */
> + tree access_type
> + = build_aligned_type (vectype, TYPE_ALIGN (eltype));
> +
> + tree mem_ref_lhs = make_ssa_name_fn (cfun, access_type, 0);
> + tree mem_ref_op = fold_build2 (MEM_REF, access_type, arg1, zero);
> + gimple *mem_ref_stmt
> + = gimple_build_assign (mem_ref_lhs, mem_ref_op);
> + gsi_insert_before (f.gsi, mem_ref_stmt, GSI_SAME_STMT);
> +
> + int source_nelts = TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS (access_type).to_constant ();
> + vec_perm_builder sel (lhs_len, source_nelts, 1);
> + for (int i = 0; i < source_nelts; i++)
> + sel.quick_push (i);
> +
> + vec_perm_indices indices (sel, 1, source_nelts);
> + gcc_checking_assert (can_vec_perm_const_p (TYPE_MODE (lhs_type),
> + TYPE_MODE (access_type),
> + indices));
> + tree mask_type = (FLOAT_TYPE_P (eltype))
> + ? build_vector_type (integer_type_node, lhs_len)
> + : lhs_type;
> + tree mask = vec_perm_indices_to_tree (mask_type, indices);
> + return gimple_build_assign (lhs, VEC_PERM_EXPR,
> + mem_ref_lhs, mem_ref_lhs, mask);
> + }
> +
> + return NULL;
> + }
> };
>
> class svld1ro_impl : public load_replicate
> diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.cc b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.cc
> index d4c575ce976..ae8e913d525 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.cc
> +++ b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.cc
> @@ -23401,7 +23401,8 @@ struct expand_vec_perm_d
> bool testing_p;
> };
>
> -static bool aarch64_expand_vec_perm_const_1 (struct expand_vec_perm_d *d);
> +static bool aarch64_expand_vec_perm_const_1 (struct expand_vec_perm_d *d,
> + machine_mode op_mode);
>
> /* Generate a variable permutation. */
>
> @@ -23638,7 +23639,7 @@ aarch64_evpc_reencode (struct expand_vec_perm_d *d)
> newd.one_vector_p = d->one_vector_p;
>
> newd.perm.new_vector (newpermconst, newd.one_vector_p ? 1 : 2, nelt / 2);
> - return aarch64_expand_vec_perm_const_1 (&newd);
> + return aarch64_expand_vec_perm_const_1 (&newd, newd.vmode);
> }
>
> /* Recognize patterns suitable for the UZP instructions. */
> @@ -23945,6 +23946,32 @@ aarch64_evpc_sve_tbl (struct expand_vec_perm_d *d)
> return true;
> }
>
> +/* Try to implement D using SVE dup instruction. */
> +
> +static bool
> +aarch64_evpc_sve_dup (struct expand_vec_perm_d *d, machine_mode op_mode)
> +{
> + if (BYTES_BIG_ENDIAN
> + || d->perm.length ().is_constant ()
Sorry, I've forgotten: why do we need this is_constant check?
> + || !d->one_vector_p
> + || aarch64_classify_vector_mode (op_mode) != VEC_ADVSIMD)
> + return false;
We need to check that nelts_per_pattern is 1 as well.
> + int npatterns = d->perm.encoding ().npatterns ();
> + if (!known_eq (npatterns, GET_MODE_NUNITS (op_mode)))
> + return false;
> +
> + for (int i = 0; i < npatterns; i++)
> + if (!known_eq (d->perm[i], i))
> + return false;
> +
> + if (d->testing_p)
> + return true;
> +
> + aarch64_expand_sve_dupq (d->target, GET_MODE (d->target), d->op0);
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> /* Try to implement D using SVE SEL instruction. */
>
> static bool
> @@ -24066,7 +24093,8 @@ aarch64_evpc_ins (struct expand_vec_perm_d *d)
> }
>
> static bool
> -aarch64_expand_vec_perm_const_1 (struct expand_vec_perm_d *d)
> +aarch64_expand_vec_perm_const_1 (struct expand_vec_perm_d *d,
> + machine_mode op_mode)
I think we should add op_mode to expand_vec_perm_d instead.
Let's also add an op_vec_flags to cache the aarch64_classify_vector_mode
result.
> {
> /* The pattern matching functions above are written to look for a small
> number to begin the sequence (0, 1, N/2). If we begin with an index
> @@ -24084,6 +24112,12 @@ aarch64_expand_vec_perm_const_1 (struct
> expand_vec_perm_d *d)
> || d->vec_flags == VEC_SVE_PRED)
> && known_gt (nelt, 1))
> {
> + /* If operand and result modes differ, then only check
> + for dup case. */
> + if (d->vmode != op_mode)
> + return (d->vec_flags == VEC_SVE_DATA)
> + ? aarch64_evpc_sve_dup (d, op_mode) : false;
> +
I think it'd be more future-proof to format this as:
if (d->vmod == d->op_mode)
{
…existing code…
}
else
{
if (aarch64_evpc_sve_dup (d))
return true;
}
with the d->vec_flags == VEC_SVE_DATA check being in aarch64_evpc_sve_dup,
alongside the op_mode check. I think we'll be adding more checks here
over time.
> if (aarch64_evpc_rev_local (d))
> return true;
> else if (aarch64_evpc_rev_global (d))
> @@ -24105,7 +24139,12 @@ aarch64_expand_vec_perm_const_1 (struct
> expand_vec_perm_d *d)
> else if (aarch64_evpc_reencode (d))
> return true;
> if (d->vec_flags == VEC_SVE_DATA)
> - return aarch64_evpc_sve_tbl (d);
> + {
> + if (aarch64_evpc_sve_tbl (d))
> + return true;
> + else if (aarch64_evpc_sve_dup (d, op_mode))
> + return true;
> + }
> else if (d->vec_flags == VEC_ADVSIMD)
> return aarch64_evpc_tbl (d);
> }
Is this part still needed, given the above?
Thanks,
Richard
> @@ -24119,9 +24158,6 @@ aarch64_vectorize_vec_perm_const (machine_mode vmode,
> machine_mode op_mode,
> rtx target, rtx op0, rtx op1,
> const vec_perm_indices &sel)
> {
> - if (vmode != op_mode)
> - return false;
> -
> struct expand_vec_perm_d d;
>
> /* Check whether the mask can be applied to a single vector. */
> @@ -24154,10 +24190,10 @@ aarch64_vectorize_vec_perm_const (machine_mode
> vmode, machine_mode op_mode,
> d.testing_p = !target;
>
> if (!d.testing_p)
> - return aarch64_expand_vec_perm_const_1 (&d);
> + return aarch64_expand_vec_perm_const_1 (&d, op_mode);
>
> rtx_insn *last = get_last_insn ();
> - bool ret = aarch64_expand_vec_perm_const_1 (&d);
> + bool ret = aarch64_expand_vec_perm_const_1 (&d, op_mode);
> gcc_assert (last == get_last_insn ());
>
> return ret;
