Hi Jeff, Yes, there are some tests fails after the last_combine pass introduced. I remember these tests still have vv format which not become vf after last_combine.
I’ll update the testcase based on my local branch after your push. Regards, Demin From: Jeff Law <jeffreya...@gmail.com> Sent: 2024年8月26日 5:59 To: Demin Han <demin....@starfivetech.com>; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Cc: juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai; kito.ch...@gmail.com; pan2...@intel.com; rdapp....@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Fix double mode under RV32 not utilize vf On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 12:07 PM Jeff Law <jeffreya...@gmail.com<mailto:jeffreya...@gmail.com>> wrote: On 7/19/24 2:55 AM, demin.han wrote: > Currently, some binops of vector vs double scalar under RV32 can't > translated to vf but vfmv+vxx.vv. > > The cause is that vec_duplicate is also expanded to broadcast for double mode > under RV32. last-combine can't process expanded broadcast. > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > * config/riscv/vector.md: Add !FLOAT_MODE_P constrain > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/binop/vadd-rv32gcv-nofm.c: Fix test > * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/binop/vdiv-rv32gcv-nofm.c: Ditto > * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/binop/vmul-rv32gcv-nofm.c: Ditto > * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/binop/vsub-rv32gcv-nofm.c: Ditto > * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/cond/cond_copysign-rv32gcv.c: Ditto > * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/cond/cond_fadd-1.c: Ditto > * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/cond/cond_fadd-2.c: Ditto > * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/cond/cond_fadd-3.c: Ditto > * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/cond/cond_fadd-4.c: Ditto > * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/cond/cond_fma_fnma-1.c: Ditto > * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/cond/cond_fma_fnma-3.c: Ditto > * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/cond/cond_fma_fnma-4.c: Ditto > * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/cond/cond_fma_fnma-5.c: Ditto > * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/cond/cond_fma_fnma-6.c: Ditto > * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/cond/cond_fmax-1.c: Ditto > * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/cond/cond_fmax-2.c: Ditto > * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/cond/cond_fmax-3.c: Ditto > * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/cond/cond_fmax-4.c: Ditto > * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/cond/cond_fmin-1.c: Ditto > * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/cond/cond_fmin-2.c: Ditto > * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/cond/cond_fmin-3.c: Ditto > * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/cond/cond_fmin-4.c: Ditto > * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/cond/cond_fms_fnms-1.c: Ditto > * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/cond/cond_fms_fnms-3.c: Ditto > * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/cond/cond_fms_fnms-4.c: Ditto > * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/cond/cond_fms_fnms-5.c: Ditto > * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/cond/cond_fms_fnms-6.c: Ditto > * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/cond/cond_fmul-1.c: Ditto > * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/cond/cond_fmul-2.c: Ditto > * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/cond/cond_fmul-3.c: Ditto > * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/cond/cond_fmul-4.c: Ditto > * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/cond/cond_fmul-5.c: Ditto It looks like vadd-rv32gcv-nofm still isn't quite right according to the pre-commit testing: > https://github.com/ewlu/gcc-precommit-ci/issues/1931#issuecomment-2238752679 OK once that's fixed. No need to wait for another review cycle. There's a reasonable chance late-combine was catching more cases that could be turned into .vf forms. That was pretty common when I first looked at the late-combine changes. Regardless, I adjusted the vadd/vsub tests and pushed this to the trunk. Thanks, jeff
