在 2023/11/23 下午3:11, Xi Ruoyao 写道:
On Thu, 2023-11-23 at 14:35 +0800, chenglulu wrote:
Hi,
I don’t quite understand this part. Is it because define_insn would be
duplicated with the above implementation,
so define_insn_and_split is used?
Yes, but if you think duplicating the above implementation is better I
can dup it as well (as it's just a single line).
(I wrote it as a define_expand but it didn't work, then I modified it to
define_insn_and_split).
I just thought it was weird when I was looking at the code.
I modified this code to use define_expand:
(define_expand "fix_trunc<mode><vimode>2"
[(set (match_operand:<VIMODE> 0 "register_operand" "=f")
(fix:<VIMODE> (match_operand:FVEC 1 "register_operand" "f")))]
""
{
emit_insn (gen_<simd_isa>_<x>vftintrz_<simdifmt_for_f>_<simdfmt> (
operands[0], operands[1]));
DONE;
}
[(set_attr "type" "simd_fcvt")
(set_attr "mode" "<MODE>")])
Here are my test cases:
typedef float __attribute__ ((mode (SF))) float_t;
typedef int __attribute__ ((mode (SI))) int_t;
extern int_t v[4];
int_t
lt_fixdfsi (float_t *x)
{
for (int i=0;i<4;i++)
v[i] = x[i];
}
This still achieves the desired effect, generating the following
assembly code:
lt_fixdfsi:
.LFB0 = .
.cfi_startproc
or $r13,$r4,$r0 # 16 [c=4 l=4] *movdi_64bit/0
la.global $r12,v # 8 [c=4 l=12] *movdi_64bit/1
vld $vr0,$r13,0 # 6 [c=12 l=4] movv4sf_lsx/1
vftintrz.w.s $vr0,$vr0 # 7 [c=12 l=4] lsx_vftintrz_w_s
vst $vr0,$r12,0 # 9 [c=4 l=4] movv4si_lsx/2
So I don't know if I'm getting it right?:-(
+(define_insn_and_split "fix_trunc<mode><vimode>2"
+ [(set (match_operand:<VIMODE> 0 "register_operand" "=f")
+ (fix:<VIMODE> (match_operand:FVEC 1 "register_operand" "f")))]
+ ""
+ "#"
+ ""
+ [(const_int 0)]
+ {
+ emit_insn (gen_<simd_isa>_<x>vftintrz_<simdifmt_for_f>_<simdfmt> (
+ operands[0], operands[1]));
+ DONE;
+ }
+ [(set_attr "type" "simd_fcvt")
+ (set_attr "mode" "<MODE>")])
