"juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai" <juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai> writes:
>>> I don't think this is a property of decrementing IVs. IIUC it's really
>>> a property of rgl->factor == 1 && factor == 1, where factor would need
>>> to be passed in by the caller. Because of that, it should probably be
>>> a separate patch.
> Is it right that I just post this part code as a seperate patch then merge it?
No, not in its current form. Like I say, the test should be based on
factors rather than TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS. But a fix for this problem
should come before the changes to IVs.
>>> That is, current LOAD_LEN targets have two properties (IIRC):
>>> (1) all vectors used in a given piece of vector code have the same byte size
>>> (2) lengths are measured in bytes rather than elements
>>> For all cases, including SVE, the number of controls needed for a scalar
>>> statement is equal to the number of vectors needed for that scalar
>>> statement.
>>> Because of (1), on current LOADL_LEN targets, the number of controls
>>> needed for a scalar statement is also proportional to the total number
>>> of bytes occupied by the vectors generated for that scalar statement.
>>> And because of (2), the total number of bytes is the only thing that
>>> matters, so all users of a particular control can use the same control
>>> value.
>>> E.g. on current LOAD_LEN targets, 2xV16QI and 2xV8HI would use the same
>>> control (with no adjustment). 2xV16QI means 32 elements, while 2xV8HI
>>> means 16 elements. V16QI's nscalars_per_iter would therefore be double
>>> V8HI's, but V8HI's factor would be double V16QI's (2 vs 1), so things
>>> even out.
>>> The code structurally supports targets that count in elements rather
>>> than bytes, so that factor==1 for all element types. See the
>>> "rgl->factor == 1 && factor == 1" case in:
> >> if (rgl->max_nscalars_per_iter < nscalars_per_iter) >> { >> /*
> For now, we only support cases in which all loads and stores fall back to
> VnQI or none do. */
> >> gcc_assert (!rgl->max_nscalars_per_iter>> ||
> (rgl->factor == 1 && factor == 1)
> || (rgl->max_nscalars_per_iter * rgl->factor
>>> == nscalars_per_iter * factor));
> >> rgl->max_nscalars_per_iter = nscalars_per_iter; >> rgl->type =
> vectype; >> rgl->factor = factor; >> }>> But it hasn't been tested,
> since no current target uses it.
>>> I think the above part of the patch shows that the current "factor is
>>> always 1" path is in fact broken, and the patch is a correctness fix on
>>> targets that measure in elements rather than bytes.
>>> So I think the above part of the patch should go in ahead of the IV changes.
>>> But the test should be based on factor rather than TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS.
> Since the length control measured by bytes instead of bytes is not
> appropriate for RVV.You mean I can't support RVV auto-vectorization in
> upstream GCC middle-end and I can only support it in my downstream, is
> that right?
No. I haven't said in this or previous reviews that something cannot be
supported in upstream GCC.
I'm saying that the code in theory supports counting in bytes *or*
counting in elements. But only the first one has actually been tested.
And so, perhaps not surprisingly, the support for counting elements
needs a fix.
The fix in your patch looks like it's on the right lines, but it should be
based on factor rather than TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS.
See get_len_load_store_mode for how this selection happens:
(1) IFN_LOAD_LEN itself always counts in elements rather than bytes.
(2) If a target has instructions that count in elements, it should
define load_len patterns for all vector modes that it supports.
(3) If a target has instructions that count in bytes, it should define
load_len patterns only for byte modes. The vectoriser will then
use byte loads for all vector types (even things like V8HI).
For (2), the loop controls will always have a factor of 1.
For (3), the loop controls will have a factor equal to the element
size in bytes. See:
machine_mode vmode;
if (get_len_load_store_mode (vecmode, is_load).exists (&vmode))
{
nvectors = group_memory_nvectors (group_size * vf, nunits);
vec_loop_lens *lens = &LOOP_VINFO_LENS (loop_vinfo);
unsigned factor = (vecmode == vmode) ? 1 : GET_MODE_UNIT_SIZE (vecmode);
vect_record_loop_len (loop_vinfo, lens, nvectors, vectype, factor);
using_partial_vectors_p = true;
}
This part should work correctly for RVV and any future targets that
measure in elements rather than bytes. The problem is here:
tree final_len
= vect_get_loop_len (loop_vinfo, loop_lens,
vec_num * ncopies,
vec_num * j + i);
tree ptr = build_int_cst (ref_type,
align * BITS_PER_UNIT);
machine_mode vmode = TYPE_MODE (vectype);
opt_machine_mode new_ovmode
= get_len_load_store_mode (vmode, true);
machine_mode new_vmode = new_ovmode.require ();
tree qi_type = unsigned_intQI_type_node;
This should be rearranged so that:
- new_vmode is calculated before final_len
- a "factor" is calculated in the same way as the above code
- this factor is passed to vect_get_loop_len
- vect_get_loop_len then uses this information to do a division.
Thanks,
Richard
