Richard Biener via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 1:01 PM Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 11:47 AM Richard Biener
>> <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 11:26 AM Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 11:17 AM Richard Biener
>> > > <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > On Sun, Jul 9, 2023 at 10:53 AM Uros Bizjak via Gcc-patches
>> > > > <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > As shown in the PR, simplify_gen_subreg call in
>> > > > > simplify_replace_fn_rtx:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > (gdb) list
>> > > > > 469 if (code == SUBREG)
>> > > > > 470 {
>> > > > > 471 op0 = simplify_replace_fn_rtx (SUBREG_REG (x),
>> > > > > old_rtx, fn, data);
>> > > > > 472 if (op0 == SUBREG_REG (x))
>> > > > > 473 return x;
>> > > > > 474 op0 = simplify_gen_subreg (GET_MODE (x), op0,
>> > > > > 475 GET_MODE (SUBREG_REG
>> > > > > (x)),
>> > > > > 476 SUBREG_BYTE (x));
>> > > > > 477 return op0 ? op0 : x;
>> > > > > 478 }
>> > > > >
>> > > > > simplifies with following arguments:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > (gdb) p debug_rtx (op0)
>> > > > > (const_vector:V4QI [
>> > > > > (const_int -52 [0xffffffffffffffcc]) repeated x4
>> > > > > ])
>> > > > > (gdb) p debug_rtx (x)
>> > > > > (subreg:V16QI (reg:V4QI 98) 0)
>> > > > >
>> > > > > to:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > (gdb) p debug_rtx (op0)
>> > > > > (const_vector:V16QI [
>> > > > > (const_int -52 [0xffffffffffffffcc]) repeated x16
>> > > > > ])
>> > > > >
>> > > > > This simplification is invalid, it is not possible to get V16QImode
>> > > > > vector
>> > > > > from V4QImode vector, even when all elements are duplicates.
>> >
>> > ^^^
>> >
>> > I think this simplification is valid. A simplification to
>> >
>> > (const_vector:V16QI [
>> > (const_int -52 [0xffffffffffffffcc]) repeated x4
>> > (const_int 0 [0]) repeated x12
>> > ])
>> >
>> > would be valid as well.
>> >
>> > > > > The simplification happens in simplify_context::simplify_subreg:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > (gdb) list
>> > > > > 7558 if (VECTOR_MODE_P (outermode)
>> > > > > 7559 && GET_MODE_INNER (outermode) == GET_MODE_INNER
>> > > > > (innermode)
>> > > > > 7560 && vec_duplicate_p (op, &elt))
>> > > > > 7561 return gen_vec_duplicate (outermode, elt);
>> > > > >
>> > > > > but the above simplification is valid only for non-paradoxical
>> > > > > registers,
>> > > > > where outermode <= innermode. We should not assume that elements
>> > > > > outside
>> > > > > the original register are valid, let alone all duplicates.
>> > > >
>> > > > Hmm, but looking at the audit trail the x86 backend expects them to be
>> > > > zero?
>> > > > Isn't that wrong as well?
>> > >
>> > > If you mean Comment #10, it is just an observation that
>> > > simplify_replace_rtx simplifies arguments from Comment #9 to:
>> > >
>> > > (gdb) p debug_rtx (src)
>> > > (const_vector:V8HI [
>> > > (const_int 204 [0xcc]) repeated x4
>> > > (const_int 0 [0]) repeated x4
>> > > ])
>> > >
>> > > instead of:
>> > >
>> > > (gdb) p debug_rtx (src)
>> > > (const_vector:V8HI [
>> > > (const_int 204 [0xcc]) repeated x8
>> > > ])
>> > >
>> > > which is in line with the statement below.
>> > > >
>> > > > That is, I think putting any random value into the upper lanes when
>> > > > constant folding
>> > > > a paradoxical subreg sounds OK to me, no?
>> > >
>> > > The compiler is putting zero there as can be seen from the above new RTX.
>> > >
>> > > > Of course we might choose to not do such constant propagation for
>> > > > efficiency reason - at least
>> > > > when the resulting CONST_* would require a larger constant pool entry
>> > > > or more costly
>> > > > construction.
>> > >
>> > > This is probably a follow-up improvement, where this patch tries to
>> > > fix a specific invalid simplification of simplify_replace_rtx that is
>> > > invalid universally.
>> >
>> > How so? What specifies the values of the paradoxical subreg for the
>> > bytes not covered by the subreg operand?
>>
>> I don't know why 0 is generated here (and if it is valid) for
>> paradoxical bytes, but 0xcc is not correct, since it sets REG_EQUAL to
>> the wrong constant and triggers unwanted propagation later on.
>
> Quoting what I wrote in the PR below. I think pragmatically the fix is
> good - we might miss some opportunistic folding this way but we for
> sure may not optimistically register an equality via REG_EQUAL without
> enforcing it (removing the producer and replacing it with the optimistic
> constant).
>
> So consider the patch approved if no other RTL maintainer chimes in
> within 48h.
Sorry, can you hold off a bit longer? Wanted to have a look but the
deadline is about to expire.
I think at least a comment is needed, since like Richard says,
the transformation seems correct for paradoxical subregs, even if it
isn't wanted for other reasons.
Thanks,
Richard
>
> Thanks,
> Richard.
>
>
> I can see cprop1 adds the REG_EQUAL note:
>
> (insn 22 21 23 4 (set (reg:V8HI 100)
> (zero_extend:V8HI (vec_select:V8QI (subreg:V16QI (reg:V4QI 98) 0)
> (parallel [
> (const_int 0 [0])
> (const_int 1 [0x1])
> (const_int 2 [0x2])
> (const_int 3 [0x3])
> (const_int 4 [0x4])
> (const_int 5 [0x5])
> (const_int 6 [0x6])
> (const_int 7 [0x7])
> ])))) "t.c":12:42 7557 {sse4_1_zero_extendv8qiv8hi2}
> - (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:V4QI 98)
> - (nil)))
> + (expr_list:REG_EQUAL (const_vector:V8HI [
> + (const_int 204 [0xcc]) repeated x8
> + ])
> + (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:V4QI 98)
> + (nil))))
>
> but I don't see yet what the actual wrong transform based on this
> REG_EQUAL note is?
>
> It looks like we CSE the above with
>
> - 46: r122:V8QI=[`*.LC3']
> - REG_EQUAL const_vector
> - 48: r125:V8HI=zero_extend(vec_select(r122:V8QI#0,parallel))
> - REG_EQUAL const_vector
> - REG_DEAD r122:V8QI
> - 49: r126:V8HI=r124:V8HI*r125:V8HI
> - REG_DEAD r125:V8HI
> + 49: r126:V8HI=r124:V8HI*r100:V8HI
>
> but otherwise do nothing. So the issue is that we rely on the "undefined"
> vals to have a specific value (from the earlier REG_EQUAL note) but actual
> code generation doesn't ensure this (it doesn't need to). That said,
> the issue isn't the constant folding per-se but that we do not actually
> constant fold but register an equality that doesn't hold.
>
>
>
>> Uros.
