On 05/02/2024 09:56, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
On 01/02/2024 07:19, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
The patch didn't come with a testcase so it's really hard to tell
what goes wrong now and how it is fixed ...
My bad! I had a testcase locally but never added it...
However... now I look at it and ran it past Richard S, the codegen isn't
'wrong', but it does have the potential to lead to some pretty slow codegen,
especially for inbranch simdclones where it transforms the SVE predicate into
an Advanced SIMD vector by inserting the elements one at a time...
An example of which can be seen if you do:
gcc -O3 -march=armv8-a+sve -msve-vector-bits=128 -fopenmp-simd t.c -S
with the following t.c:
#pragma omp declare simd simdlen(4) inbranch
int __attribute__ ((const)) fn5(int);
void fn4 (int *a, int *b, int n)
{
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
b[i] = fn5(a[i]);
}
Now I do have to say, for our main usecase of libmvec we won't have any
'inbranch' Advanced SIMD clones, so we avoid that issue... But of course that
doesn't mean user-code will.
It seems to use SVE masks with vector(4) <signed-boolean:4> and the
ABI says the mask is vector(4) int. You say that's because we choose
a Adv SIMD clone for the SVE VLS vector code (it calls _ZGVnM4v_fn5).
The vectorizer creates
_44 = VEC_COND_EXPR <loop_mask_41, { 1, 1, 1, 1 }, { 0, 0, 0, 0 }>;
and then vector lowering decomposes this. That means the vectorizer
lacks a check that the target handles this VEC_COND_EXPR.
Of course I would expect that SVE with VLS vectors is able to
code generate this operation, so it's missing patterns in the end.
Richard.
What should we do for GCC-14? Going forward I think the right thing to
do is to add these patterns. But I am not even going to try to do that
right now and even though we can codegen for this, the result doesn't
feel like it would ever be profitable which means I'd rather not
vectorize, or well pick a different vector mode if possible.
This would be achieved with the change to the targethook. If I change
the hook to take modes, using STMT_VINFO_VECTYPE (stmt_vinfo), is that
OK for now?
Kind regards,
Andre
