> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandif...@arm.com>
> Sent: Friday, September 23, 2022 6:04 AM
> To: Tamar Christina <tamar.christ...@arm.com>
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; nd <n...@arm.com>; Richard Earnshaw
> <richard.earns...@arm.com>; Marcus Shawcroft
> <marcus.shawcr...@arm.com>; Kyrylo Tkachov <kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2]AArch64 Add support for neg on v1df
>
> Tamar Christina <tamar.christ...@arm.com> writes:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandif...@arm.com>
> >> Sent: Friday, September 23, 2022 5:30 AM
> >> To: Tamar Christina <tamar.christ...@arm.com>
> >> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; nd <n...@arm.com>; Richard Earnshaw
> >> <richard.earns...@arm.com>; Marcus Shawcroft
> >> <marcus.shawcr...@arm.com>; Kyrylo Tkachov
> <kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2]AArch64 Add support for neg on v1df
> >>
> >> Tamar Christina <tamar.christ...@arm.com> writes:
> >> > Hi All,
> >> >
> >> > This adds support for using scalar fneg on the V1DF type.
> >> >
> >> > Bootstrapped Regtested on aarch64-none-linux-gnu and no issues.
> >> >
> >> > Ok for master?
> >>
> >> Why just this one operation though? Couldn't we extend iterators
> >> like
> >> GPF_F16 to include V1DF, avoiding the need for new patterns?
> >>
> >
> > Simply because it's the only one I know how to generate code for.
> > I can change GPF_F16 but I don't know under which circumstances we'd
> > generate a V1DF for the other operations.
>
> We'd do it for things like:
>
> __Float64x1_t foo (__Float64x1_t x) { return -x; }
>
> if the pattern is available, instead of using subregs. So one way would be to
> scan the expand rtl dump for subregs.
Ahh yes, I forgot about that ACLE type.
>
> If the point is that there is no observable difference between defining 1-
> element vector ops and not, except for this one case, then that suggests we
> should handle this case in target-independent code instead. There's no point
> forcing every target that has V1DF to define a duplicate of the DF neg
> pattern.
My original approach was to indeed use DF instead of V1DF, however since we
do define V1DF I had expected the mode to be somewhat usable.
So I'm happy to do whichever one you prefer now that I know how to test it.
I can either change my mid-end code, or extend the coverage of V1DF, any
preference? 😊
Tamar
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
> >
> > So if it's ok to do so without full test coverage I'm happy to do so...
> >
> > Tamar.
> >
> >> Richard
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Tamar
> >> >
> >> > gcc/ChangeLog:
> >> >
> >> > * config/aarch64/aarch64-simd.md (negv1df2): New.
> >> >
> >> > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> >> >
> >> > * gcc.target/aarch64/simd/addsub_2.c: New test.
> >> >
> >> > --- inline copy of patch --
> >> > diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-simd.md
> >> > b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-simd.md
> >> > index
> >> >
> >>
> f4152160084d6b6f34bd69f0ba6386c1ab50f77e..cf8c094bd4b76981cef2dd5dd7
> >> b8
> >> > e6be0d56101f 100644
> >> > --- a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-simd.md
> >> > +++ b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-simd.md
> >> > @@ -2713,6 +2713,14 @@ (define_insn "neg<mode>2"
> >> > [(set_attr "type" "neon_fp_neg_<stype><q>")]
> >> > )
> >> >
> >> > +(define_insn "negv1df2"
> >> > + [(set (match_operand:V1DF 0 "register_operand" "=w")
> >> > + (neg:V1DF (match_operand:V1DF 1 "register_operand" "w")))]
> >> > +"TARGET_SIMD"
> >> > + "fneg\\t%d0, %d1"
> >> > + [(set_attr "type" "neon_fp_neg_d")]
> >> > +)
> >> > +
> >> > (define_insn "abs<mode>2"
> >> > [(set (match_operand:VHSDF 0 "register_operand" "=w")
> >> > (abs:VHSDF (match_operand:VHSDF 1 "register_operand"
> >> > "w")))] diff --git
> >> > a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/simd/addsub_2.c
> >> > b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/simd/addsub_2.c
> >> > new file mode 100644
> >> > index
> >> >
> >>
> 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..55a7365e897f8af509de953129
> >> e0
> >> > f516974f7ca8
> >> > --- /dev/null
> >> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/simd/addsub_2.c
> >> > @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
> >> > +/* { dg-do compile } */
> >> > +/* { dg-options "-Ofast" } */
> >> > +/* { dg-final { check-function-bodies "**" "" "" { target { le } }
> >> > +} } */
> >> > +
> >> > +#pragma GCC target "+nosve"
> >> > +
> >> > +/*
> >> > +** f1:
> >> > +** ...
> >> > +** fneg d[0-9]+, d[0-9]+
> >> > +** fadd v[0-9]+.2s, v[0-9]+.2s, v[0-9]+.2s
> >> > +** ...
> >> > +*/
> >> > +void f1 (float *restrict a, float *restrict b, float *res, int n) {
> >> > + for (int i = 0; i < 2; i+=2)
> >> > + {
> >> > + res[i+0] = a[i+0] + b[i+0];
> >> > + res[i+1] = a[i+1] - b[i+1];
> >> > + }
> >> > +}
> >> > +
