> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gcc-patches <gcc-patches-
> bounces+tamar.christina=arm....@gcc.gnu.org> On Behalf Of Tamar
> Christina via Gcc-patches
> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 1:24 PM
> To: Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com>; Manolis Tsamis
> <manolis.tsa...@vrull.eu>
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Philipp Tomsich <philipp.toms...@vrull.eu>;
> jiangning....@amperecomputing.com; Christoph Muellner
> <christoph.muell...@vrull.eu>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] Add pattern to convert vector shift + bitwise and +
> multiply to vector compare in some cases.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 1:19 PM
> > To: Manolis Tsamis <manolis.tsa...@vrull.eu>
> > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Philipp Tomsich
> > <philipp.toms...@vrull.eu>; Tamar Christina <tamar.christ...@arm.com>;
> > jiangning....@amperecomputing.com; Christoph Muellner
> > <christoph.muell...@vrull.eu>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Add pattern to convert vector shift + bitwise
> > and + multiply to vector compare in some cases.
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 9:59 AM Manolis Tsamis
> > <manolis.tsa...@vrull.eu>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 9:44 AM Richard Biener
> > > <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 11:05 AM Manolis Tsamis
> > <manolis.tsa...@vrull.eu> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > When using SWAR (SIMD in a register) techniques a comparison
> > > > > operation within such a register can be made by using a
> > > > > combination of shifts, bitwise and and multiplication. If code
> > > > > using this scheme is vectorized then there is potential to
> > > > > replace all these operations with a single vector comparison, by
> > > > > reinterpreting
> > the vector types to match the width of the SWAR register.
> > > > >
> > > > > For example, for the test function packed_cmp_16_32, the
> > > > > original
> > generated code is:
> > > > >
> > > > > ldr q0, [x0]
> > > > > add w1, w1, 1
> > > > > ushr v0.4s, v0.4s, 15
> > > > > and v0.16b, v0.16b, v2.16b
> > > > > shl v1.4s, v0.4s, 16
> > > > > sub v0.4s, v1.4s, v0.4s
> > > > > str q0, [x0], 16
> > > > > cmp w2, w1
> > > > > bhi .L20
> > > > >
> > > > > with this pattern the above can be optimized to:
> > > > >
> > > > > ldr q0, [x0]
> > > > > add w1, w1, 1
> > > > > cmlt v0.8h, v0.8h, #0
> > > > > str q0, [x0], 16
> > > > > cmp w2, w1
> > > > > bhi .L20
> > > > >
> > > > > The effect is similar for x86-64.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Manolis Tsamis <manolis.tsa...@vrull.eu>
> > > > >
> > > > > gcc/ChangeLog:
> > > > >
> > > > > * match.pd: Simplify vector shift + bit_and + multiply in some
> cases.
> > > > >
> > > > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> > > > >
> > > > > * gcc.target/aarch64/swar_to_vec_cmp.c: New test.
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > >
> > > > > Changes in v2:
> > > > > - Changed pattern to use vec_cond_expr.
> > > > > - Changed pattern to work with VLA vector.
> > > > > - Added more checks and comments.
> > > > >
> > > > > gcc/match.pd | 60 ++++++++++++++++
> > > > > .../gcc.target/aarch64/swar_to_vec_cmp.c | 72
> > +++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > 2 files changed, 132 insertions(+) create mode 100644
> > > > > gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/swar_to_vec_cmp.c
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/gcc/match.pd b/gcc/match.pd index
> > > > > 67a0a682f31..05e7fc79ba8 100644
> > > > > --- a/gcc/match.pd
> > > > > +++ b/gcc/match.pd
> > > > > @@ -301,6 +301,66 @@ DEFINE_INT_AND_FLOAT_ROUND_FN (RINT)
> > > > > (view_convert (bit_and:itype (view_convert @0)
> > > > > (ne @1 { build_zero_cst (type);
> > > > > })))))))
> > > > >
> > > > > +/* In SWAR (SIMD in a register) code a signed comparison of
> > > > > +packed
> > data can
> > > > > + be constructed with a particular combination of shift, bitwise
> > > > > and,
> > > > > + and multiplication by constants. If that code is vectorized we
> > > > > can
> > > > > + convert this pattern into a more efficient vector comparison.
> > > > > +*/ (simplify (mult (bit_and (rshift @0 uniform_integer_cst_p@1)
> > > > > + uniform_integer_cst_p@2)
> > > > > + uniform_integer_cst_p@3)
> > > >
> > > > Please use VECTOR_CST in the match instead of
> > > > uniform_integer_cst_p and instead ...
> > > >
> > >
> > > Will do.
> > >
> > > > > + (with {
> > > > > + tree rshift_cst = uniform_integer_cst_p (@1);
> > > > > + tree bit_and_cst = uniform_integer_cst_p (@2);
> > > > > + tree mult_cst = uniform_integer_cst_p (@3); }
> > > > > + /* Make sure we're working with vectors and uniform vector
> > > > > + constants. */ (if (VECTOR_TYPE_P (type)
> > > >
> > > > ... test for non-NULL *_cst here where you can use
> > > > uniform_vector_p instead of uniform_integer_cst_p. You can elide
> > > > the VECTOR_TYPE_P check then and instead do INTEGRAL_TYPE_P
> (TREE_TYPE (type)).
> > > >
> > >
> > > Will do.
> > >
> > > > > + && tree_fits_uhwi_p (rshift_cst)
> > > > > + && tree_fits_uhwi_p (mult_cst)
> > > > > + && tree_fits_uhwi_p (bit_and_cst))
> > > > > + /* Compute what constants would be needed for this to
> > > > > + represent a
> > packed
> > > > > + comparison based on the shift amount denoted by RSHIFT_CST.
> */
> > > > > + (with {
> > > > > + HOST_WIDE_INT vec_elem_bits = vector_element_bits (type);
> > > > > + poly_int64 vec_nelts = TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS (type);
> > > > > + poly_int64 vec_bits = vec_elem_bits * vec_nelts;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT cmp_bits_i, bit_and_i, mult_i;
> > > > > + unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT target_mult_i, target_bit_and_i;
> > > > > + cmp_bits_i = tree_to_uhwi (rshift_cst) + 1;
> > > > > + target_mult_i = (HOST_WIDE_INT_1U << cmp_bits_i) - 1;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + mult_i = tree_to_uhwi (mult_cst);
> > > > > + bit_and_i = tree_to_uhwi (bit_and_cst);
> > > > > + target_bit_and_i = 0;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /* The bit pattern in BIT_AND_I should be a mask for the least
> > > > > + significant bit of each packed element that is CMP_BITS
> > > > > wide. */
> > > > > + for (unsigned i = 0; i < vec_elem_bits / cmp_bits_i; i++)
> > > > > + target_bit_and_i = (target_bit_and_i << cmp_bits_i) | 1U;
> > > > > + }
> > > > > + (if ((exact_log2 (cmp_bits_i)) >= 0
> > > > > + && cmp_bits_i < HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT
> > > > > + && multiple_p (vec_bits, cmp_bits_i)
> > > > > + && vec_elem_bits <= HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT
> > > > > + && target_mult_i == mult_i
> > > > > + && target_bit_and_i == bit_and_i)
> > > > > + /* Compute the vector shape for the comparison and check
> > > > > + if the
> > target is
> > > > > + able to expand the comparison with that type. */
> > > > > + (with {
> > > > > + /* We're doing a signed comparison. */
> > > > > + tree cmp_type = build_nonstandard_integer_type (cmp_bits_i,
> 0);
> > > > > + poly_int64 vector_type_nelts = exact_div (vec_bits,
> > > > > cmp_bits_i);
> > > > > + tree vector_cmp_type = build_vector_type (cmp_type,
> > vector_type_nelts);
> > > > > + tree zeros = build_zero_cst (vector_cmp_type);
> > > > > + tree ones = build_all_ones_cst (vector_cmp_type);
> > > > > + }
> > > > > + (if (expand_vec_cmp_expr_p (vector_cmp_type,
> > vector_cmp_type, LT_EXPR))
> > > > > + (view_convert:type (vec_cond (lt
> > (view_convert:vector_cmp_type @0)
> > > > > + { zeros; })
> > > > > + { ones; } { zeros; })))))))))
> > > >
> > > > You are testing whether we can expand the comparison but not
> > > > whether we can expand the vector condition here? The set of
> > > > combinations supported are tricky, I think your test is
> > > > conservatively OK but it might fail to match AVX512 and will fail
> > > > targets with masks (SVE, GCN?). I think adding
> > > >
> > > > || expand_vec_cond_expr_p (vector_cmp_type, vector_cmp_type,
> > > > LT_EXPR)
> > > >
> > > > would fix that (but there will be extra cost in producing the
> > > > final result vector from the comparison mask).
> > > >
> > >
> > > I didn't understand that these needed separate checks, thanks for
> > > pointing it out.
> > > Will do.
> > >
> > > > I do wonder if, as this is targeted at vectorization, this
> > > > shouldn't be a vectorizer pattern instead of a post-processing
> transform?
> > > > That
> > >
> > > My initial implementation for this was actually targeting the
> > > vectorization patterns but it didn't fit with it very well. One
> > > issue that was raised is that these patterns need the internal vec
> > > calls and adding one internal function for this optimization would
> > > be hardly justifiable and possibly ugly. The way I see it this is a
> > > peephole optimization and not something to make a pattern for.
> > > After that match.pd was looking like a better place to achieve the
> > > optimization in a clean way and not pollute the vectorizer.
> > > My understanding of the vectorization machinery is limited so please
> > > correct me if I'm wrong.
> > >
> > > > way we would
> > > > get the costing in the vectorizer correct and not rely on integer
> > > > vector shift or multiplication and also get the cost of producing
> > > > the result vector correct? I can't fully decipher the trick
> > > > though, but assume that vector_cmp_type always has smaller
> > > > elements than 'type'.
> > > >
> > >
> > > That is correct, all this applies when vector_cmp_type has smaller
> > > elements than type. Otherwise if vector_cmp_type == type there is no
> > > SWAR and GCC optimizes it nicely already). But I haven't added any
> > > special case for that as the pattern is general and works nicely in
> > > both
> > cases.
> >
> > So a vectorizer pattern would be to replace the multiplication with
> > (with smaller type T and original type U)
> >
> > (T)@0 < 0 ? (U)-1 :(U)0
> >
> > ? That is, this should also work on the scalar side? (if it doesn't
> > then it indeed gets more tricky)
>
> Hmm don't think it does, as the narrowing on the scalar size will result in
> pack/unpack operations during vectorization would it not? The < needs to be
> done without changing the VF.
>
> i.e. it's only valid as a vector -> vector transform by reinterpreting the
> bits in
> the vector.
Additionally, I don't think a scalar representation is actually correct. Each
scalar
value still contains multiple packed values. So e.g. uint16_t contains two
uint8_t
values which have to be individually compared. So a cast on the scalar value is
incorrect as it's just truncating. A type convert on a scalar would be
incorrect as
well as the semantics of < is incorrect then (it'll compare it as a whole).
Regards,
Tamar
>
> Tamar
>
> >
> > > The trick is that in scalar code where simd-within-a-register
> > > techniques are used a signed comparison can be created by 1) right
> > > shifting the sign bits to the lsb
> > > 2) masking off everything else and 3) multiply by an appropriate
> > > 0xffff... constant to create a mask. GCC computes this as 4
> > > instructions since the multiply is usually replaced by shift and
> > > subtract. But if this sequence gets vectorized then all this
> > > sequence can be replaced by a single vector compare-less, since the
> > > original code was emulating what a vector comapre-less does anyway.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > Manolis
> > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Richard.
> > > >
> > > > > +
> > > > > (for cmp (gt ge lt le)
> > > > > outp (convert convert negate negate)
> > > > > outn (negate negate convert convert) diff --git
> > > > > a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/swar_to_vec_cmp.c
> > > > > b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/swar_to_vec_cmp.c
> > > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > > index 00000000000..26f9ad9ef28
> > > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/swar_to_vec_cmp.c
> > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
> > > > > +/* { dg-do compile } */
> > > > > +/* { dg-options "-O2 -ftree-vectorize" } */
> > > > > +
> > > > > +typedef unsigned char uint8_t;
> > > > > +typedef unsigned short uint16_t; typedef unsigned int uint32_t;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +/* 8-bit SWAR tests. */
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static uint8_t packed_cmp_8_8(uint8_t a) {
> > > > > + return ((a >> 7) & 0x1U) * 0xffU; }
> > > > > +
> > > > > +/* 16-bit SWAR tests. */
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static uint16_t packed_cmp_8_16(uint16_t a) {
> > > > > + return ((a >> 7) & 0x101U) * 0xffU; }
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static uint16_t packed_cmp_16_16(uint16_t a) {
> > > > > + return ((a >> 15) & 0x1U) * 0xffffU; }
> > > > > +
> > > > > +/* 32-bit SWAR tests. */
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static uint32_t packed_cmp_8_32(uint32_t a) {
> > > > > + return ((a >> 7) & 0x1010101U) * 0xffU; }
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static uint32_t packed_cmp_16_32(uint32_t a) {
> > > > > + return ((a >> 15) & 0x10001U) * 0xffffU; }
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static uint32_t packed_cmp_32_32(uint32_t a) {
> > > > > + return ((a >> 31) & 0x1U) * 0xffffffffU; }
> > > > > +
> > > > > +/* Driver function to test the vectorized code generated for
> > > > > +the
> > different
> > > > > + packed_cmp variants. */
> > > > > +
> > > > > +#define VECTORIZED_PACKED_CMP(T, FUNC) \
> > > > > + void vectorized_cmp_##FUNC(T* a, int n) \
> > > > > + { \
> > > > > + n = (n / 32) * 32; \
> > > > > + for(int i = 0; i < n; i += 4) \
> > > > > + { \
> > > > > + a[i + 0] = FUNC(a[i + 0]); \
> > > > > + a[i + 1] = FUNC(a[i + 1]); \
> > > > > + a[i + 2] = FUNC(a[i + 2]); \
> > > > > + a[i + 3] = FUNC(a[i + 3]); \
> > > > > + } \
> > > > > + }
> > > > > +
> > > > > +VECTORIZED_PACKED_CMP(uint8_t, packed_cmp_8_8);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +VECTORIZED_PACKED_CMP(uint16_t, packed_cmp_8_16);
> > > > > +VECTORIZED_PACKED_CMP(uint16_t, packed_cmp_16_16);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +VECTORIZED_PACKED_CMP(uint32_t, packed_cmp_8_32);
> > > > > +VECTORIZED_PACKED_CMP(uint32_t, packed_cmp_16_32);
> > > > > +VECTORIZED_PACKED_CMP(uint32_t, packed_cmp_32_32);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler {\tcmlt\t} } } */
> > > > > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not {\tushr\t} } } */
> > > > > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not {\tshl\t} } } */
> > > > > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not {\tmul\t} } } */
> > > > > --
> > > > > 2.34.1
> > > > >
