Sorry for the slow reply.
Prathamesh Kulkarni <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> writes:
> Unfortunately it regresses code-gen for the following case:
>
> svint32_t f(int32x4_t x)
> {
> return svdupq_s32 (x[0], x[1], x[2], x[3]);
> }
>
> -O2 code-gen with trunk:
> f:
> dup z0.q, z0.q[0]
> ret
>
> -O2 code-gen with patch:
> f:
> dup s1, v0.s[1]
> mov v2.8b, v0.8b
> ins v1.s[1], v0.s[3]
> ins v2.s[1], v0.s[2]
> zip1 v0.4s, v2.4s, v1.4s
> dup z0.q, z0.q[0]
> ret
>
> IIUC, svdupq_impl::expand uses aarch64_expand_vector_init
> to initialize the "base 128-bit vector" and then use dupq to replicate it.
>
> Without patch, aarch64_expand_vector_init generates fallback code, and then
> combine optimizes a sequence of vec_merge/vec_select pairs into an assignment:
>
> (insn 7 3 8 2 (set (reg:SI 99)
> (vec_select:SI (reg/v:V4SI 97 [ x ])
> (parallel [
> (const_int 1 [0x1])
> ]))) "bar.c":6:10 2592 {aarch64_get_lanev4si}
> (nil))
>
> (insn 13 9 15 2 (set (reg:V4SI 102)
> (vec_merge:V4SI (vec_duplicate:V4SI (reg:SI 99))
> (reg/v:V4SI 97 [ x ])
> (const_int 2 [0x2]))) "bar.c":6:10 1794 {aarch64_simd_vec_setv4si}
> (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:SI 99)
> (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg/v:V4SI 97 [ x ])
> (nil))))
>
> into:
> Trying 7 -> 13:
> 7: r99:SI=vec_select(r97:V4SI,parallel)
> 13: r102:V4SI=vec_merge(vec_duplicate(r99:SI),r97:V4SI,0x2)
> REG_DEAD r99:SI
> REG_DEAD r97:V4SI
> Successfully matched this instruction:
> (set (reg:V4SI 102)
> (reg/v:V4SI 97 [ x ]))
>
> which eventually results into:
> (note 2 25 3 2 NOTE_INSN_DELETED)
> (note 3 2 7 2 NOTE_INSN_FUNCTION_BEG)
> (note 7 3 8 2 NOTE_INSN_DELETED)
> (note 8 7 9 2 NOTE_INSN_DELETED)
> (note 9 8 13 2 NOTE_INSN_DELETED)
> (note 13 9 15 2 NOTE_INSN_DELETED)
> (note 15 13 17 2 NOTE_INSN_DELETED)
> (note 17 15 18 2 NOTE_INSN_DELETED)
> (note 18 17 22 2 NOTE_INSN_DELETED)
> (insn 22 18 23 2 (parallel [
> (set (reg/i:VNx4SI 32 v0)
> (vec_duplicate:VNx4SI (reg:V4SI 108)))
> (clobber (scratch:VNx16BI))
> ]) "bar.c":7:1 5202 {aarch64_vec_duplicate_vqvnx4si_le}
> (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:V4SI 108)
> (nil)))
> (insn 23 22 0 2 (use (reg/i:VNx4SI 32 v0)) "bar.c":7:1 -1
> (nil))
>
> I was wondering if we should add the above special case, of assigning
> target = vec in aarch64_expand_vector_init, if initializer is {
> vec[0], vec[1], ... } ?
I'm not sure it will be easy to detect that. Won't the inputs to
aarch64_expand_vector_init just be plain registers? It's not a
good idea in general to search for definitions of registers
during expansion.
It would be nice to fix this by lowering svdupq into:
(a) a constructor for a 128-bit vector
(b) a duplication of the 128-bit vector to fill an SVE vector
But I'm not sure what the best way of doing (b) would be.
In RTL we can use vec_duplicate, but I don't think gimple
has an equivalent construct. Maybe Richi has some ideas.
We're planning to implement the ACLE's Neon-SVE bridge:
https://github.com/ARM-software/acle/blob/main/main/acle.md#neon-sve-bridge
and so we'll need (b) to implement the svdup_neonq functions.
Thanks,
Richard
