On Sun, Jun 25, 2023 at 9:35 PM Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On 25.06.2023 09:30, Hongtao Liu wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 25, 2023 at 3:23 PM Hongtao Liu <crazy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, Jun 25, 2023 at 3:13 PM Hongtao Liu <crazy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Jun 25, 2023 at 1:52 PM Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 25.06.2023 06:42, Hongtao Liu wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 2:26 PM Jan Beulich via Gcc-patches
> >>>>> <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> +(define_code_iterator andor [and ior])
> >>>>>> +(define_code_attr nlogic [(and "nor") (ior "nand")])
> >>>>>> +(define_code_attr ternlog_nlogic [(and "0x11") (ior "0x77")])
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> +(define_insn "*<nlogic><mode>3"
> >>>>>> + [(set (match_operand:VI 0 "register_operand" "=v,v")
> >>>>>> + (andor:VI
> >>>>>> + (not:VI (match_operand:VI 1 "bcst_vector_operand" "%v,v"))
> >>>>>> + (not:VI (match_operand:VI 2 "bcst_vector_operand"
> >>>>>> "vBr,m"))))]
> >>>>> I'm thinking of doing it in simplify_rtx or gimple match.pd to transform
> >>>>> (and (not op1)) (not op2)) -> (not: (ior: op1 op2))
> >>>>
> >>>> This wouldn't be a win (not + andn) -> (or + not), but what's
> >>>> more important is ...
> >>>>
> >>>>> (ior (not op1) (not op2)) -> (not : (and op1 op2))
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Even w/o avx512f, the transformation should also benefit since it
> >>>>> takes less logic operations 3 -> 2.(or 2 -> 2 for pandn).
> >>>>
> >>>> ... that these transformations (from the, as per the doc,
> >>>> canonical representation of nand and nor) are already occurring
> >>> I see, there're already such simplifications in the gimple phase, so
> >>> the question: is there any need for and/ior:not not pattern?
> >>> Can you provide a testcase to demonstrate that and/ior: not not
> >>> pattern is needed?
> >>
> >> typedef int v4si __attribute__((vector_size(16)));
> >> v4si
> >> foo1 (v4si a, v4si b)
> >> {
> >> return ~a & ~b;
> >> }
> >>
> >> I only gimple have optimized it to
> >>
> >> <bb 2> [local count: 1073741824]:
> >> # DEBUG BEGIN_STMT
> >> _1 = a_2(D) | b_3(D);
> >> _4 = ~_1;
> >> return _4;
> >>
> >>
> >> But rtl still try to match
> >>
> >> (set (reg:V4SI 86)
> >> (and:V4SI (not:V4SI (reg:V4SI 88))
> >> (not:V4SI (reg:V4SI 89))))
> >>
> >> Hmm.
> > In rtl, we're using xor -1 for not, so it's
> >
> > (insn 8 7 9 2 (set (reg:V4SI 87)
> > (ior:V4SI (reg:V4SI 88)
> > (reg:V4SI 89))) "/app/example.cpp":6:15 6830 {*iorv4si3}
> > (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:V4SI 89)
> > (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:V4SI 88)
> > (nil))))
> > (insn 9 8 14 2 (set (reg:V4SI 86)
> > (xor:V4SI (reg:V4SI 87)
> > (const_vector:V4SI [
> > (const_int -1 [0xffffffffffffffff]) repeated x4
> > ]))) "/app/example.cpp":6:18 6792 {*one_cmplv4si2}
> >
> > Then simplified to
> >> (set (reg:V4SI 86)
> >> (and:V4SI (not:V4SI (reg:V4SI 88))
> >> (not:V4SI (reg:V4SI 89))))
> >>
> >
> > by
> >
> > 3565 case XOR:
> > 3566 if (trueop1 == CONST0_RTX (mode))
> > 3567 return op0;
> > 3568 if (INTEGRAL_MODE_P (mode) && trueop1 == CONSTM1_RTX (mode))
> > 3569 return simplify_gen_unary (NOT, mode, op0, mode);
> >
> > and
> >
> > 1018 /* Apply De Morgan's laws to reduce number of patterns for
> > machines
> > 1019 with negating logical insns (and-not, nand, etc.). If result
> > has
> > 1020 only one NOT, put it first, since that is how the patterns are
> > 1021 coded. */
> > 1022 if (GET_CODE (op) == IOR || GET_CODE (op) == AND)
> > 1023 {
> > 1024 rtx in1 = XEXP (op, 0), in2 = XEXP (op, 1);
> > 1025 machine_mode op_mode;
> > 1026
> > 1027 op_mode = GET_MODE (in1);
> > 1028 in1 = simplify_gen_unary (NOT, op_mode, in1, op_mode);
> > 1029
> > 1030 op_mode = GET_MODE (in2);
> > 1031 if (op_mode == VOIDmode)
> > 1032 op_mode = mode;
> > 1033 in2 = simplify_gen_unary (NOT, op_mode, in2, op_mode);
> > 1034
> > 1035 if (GET_CODE (in2) == NOT && GET_CODE (in1) != NOT)
> > 1036 std::swap (in1, in2);
> > 1037
> > 1038 return gen_rtx_fmt_ee (GET_CODE (op) == IOR ? AND : IOR,
> > 1039 mode, in1, in2);
> > 1040 }
> >
> >
> > Ok, got it, and/ior:not not pattern LGTM then.
>
> Just to avoid misunderstandings - together with your initial
> reply that's then an "okay" to the patch as a whole, right?
Yes.
>
> Thanks, Jan
--
BR,
Hongtao
