As VEC_PERM nodes no longer have a representative if those are at
the SLP pattern root we have to get at one by other means to be
able to create the scalar pattern to use.
I've noticed that complex_pattern::build isn't really a full build
but is used as common helper and receives a garbled node only. So
I made that not an overload of build but a true helper, leaving
complex_pattern as pure abstract class. The new build_common helper
receives the representative (analysis should have picked and saved
one, but SLP patterns are not my area of expertise). In the callers
we still have the ungarbled node with original children, so we can
hope to figure a representative operation from there.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
OK?
Thanks,
Richard.
PR tree-optimization/126984
* tree-vect-slp-patterns.cc (complex_pattern::build):
Rename to ...
(complex_pattern::build_common): ... this and add a
stmt_vec_info parameter.
(complex_pattern::build): Likewise and adjust.
(complex_add_pattern::build): Compute a representative
and call build_common instead of complex_pattern::build.
(complex_mul_pattern::build): Likewise.
(complex_fms_pattern::build): Likewise.
* gcc.dg/vect/vect-pr126984.c: New testcase.
---
gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-pr126984.c | 16 ++++++++++
gcc/tree-vect-slp-patterns.cc | 36 +++++++++++++++++------
2 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-pr126984.c
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-pr126984.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-pr126984.c
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..ed7dc059cfa
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-pr126984.c
@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-additional-options "-ffast-math" } */
+/* { dg-additional-options "-march=armv9-a" { target { aarch64-*-* } } } */
+
+double *a;
+double b, c, d, e, f;
+int g, h;
+void l() {
+ double i, j, k;
+ for (; g; g++, h += 2) {
+ k = a[h];
+ j = a[h + 1];
+ a[h] = b * f - c * e + d * k - i * j;
+ a[h + 1] = b * e + c * f + d * j + i * k;
+ }
+}
diff --git a/gcc/tree-vect-slp-patterns.cc b/gcc/tree-vect-slp-patterns.cc
index bf9efacf161..879b917ab2f 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-vect-slp-patterns.cc
+++ b/gcc/tree-vect-slp-patterns.cc
@@ -489,9 +489,9 @@ class complex_pattern : public vect_pattern
this->m_workset.safe_push (*node);
}
- public:
- void build (vec_info *) override;
+ void build_common (vec_info *, stmt_vec_info);
+ public:
static internal_fn
matches (complex_operation_t op, slp_tree_to_load_perm_map_t *, slp_tree *,
vec<slp_tree> *);
@@ -518,10 +518,8 @@ class complex_pattern : public vect_pattern
*/
void
-complex_pattern::build (vec_info *vinfo)
+complex_pattern::build_common (vec_info *vinfo, stmt_vec_info stmt_info)
{
- stmt_vec_info stmt_info;
-
auto_vec<tree> args;
args.create (this->m_num_args);
args.quick_grow_cleared (this->m_num_args);
@@ -534,7 +532,6 @@ complex_pattern::build (vec_info *vinfo)
FOR_EACH_VEC_ELT (this->m_workset, ix, node)
{
/* Calculate the location of the statement in NODE to replace. */
- stmt_info = SLP_TREE_SCALAR_STMTS (node)[0];
gimple* old_stmt = STMT_VINFO_STMT (stmt_info);
tree lhs_old_stmt = gimple_get_lhs (old_stmt);
tree type = TREE_TYPE (lhs_old_stmt);
@@ -611,6 +608,13 @@ class complex_add_pattern : public complex_pattern
void
complex_add_pattern::build (vec_info *vinfo)
{
+ /* ??? We should not have to guess here, analysis should have saved it. */
+ stmt_vec_info rep;
+ if (SLP_TREE_PERMUTE_P (*m_node))
+ rep = SLP_TREE_REPRESENTATIVE (SLP_TREE_CHILDREN (*m_node)[0]);
+ else
+ rep = SLP_TREE_REPRESENTATIVE (*m_node);
+
SLP_TREE_CHILDREN (*this->m_node).reserve_exact (2);
slp_tree node = this->m_ops[0];
@@ -626,7 +630,7 @@ complex_add_pattern::build (vec_info *vinfo)
vect_free_slp_tree (this->m_ops[0]);
vect_free_slp_tree (this->m_ops[1]);
- complex_pattern::build (vinfo);
+ build_common (vinfo, rep);
}
/* Pattern matcher for trying to match complex addition pattern in SLP tree.
@@ -1195,6 +1199,13 @@ complex_mul_pattern::recognize
(slp_tree_to_load_perm_map_t *perm_cache,
void
complex_mul_pattern::build (vec_info *vinfo)
{
+ /* ??? We should not have to guess here, analysis should have saved it. */
+ stmt_vec_info rep;
+ if (SLP_TREE_PERMUTE_P (*m_node))
+ rep = SLP_TREE_REPRESENTATIVE (SLP_TREE_CHILDREN (*m_node)[0]);
+ else
+ rep = SLP_TREE_REPRESENTATIVE (*m_node);
+
slp_tree node;
unsigned i;
switch (this->m_ifn)
@@ -1243,7 +1254,7 @@ complex_mul_pattern::build (vec_info *vinfo)
}
/* And then rewrite the node itself. */
- complex_pattern::build (vinfo);
+ build_common (vinfo, rep);
}
/*******************************************************************************
@@ -1481,6 +1492,13 @@ complex_fms_pattern::recognize
(slp_tree_to_load_perm_map_t *perm_cache,
void
complex_fms_pattern::build (vec_info *vinfo)
{
+ /* ??? We should not have to guess here, analysis should have saved it. */
+ stmt_vec_info rep;
+ if (SLP_TREE_PERMUTE_P (*m_node))
+ rep = SLP_TREE_REPRESENTATIVE (SLP_TREE_CHILDREN (*m_node)[0]);
+ else
+ rep = SLP_TREE_REPRESENTATIVE (*m_node);
+
slp_tree node;
unsigned i;
slp_tree newnode =
@@ -1500,7 +1518,7 @@ complex_fms_pattern::build (vec_info *vinfo)
SLP_TREE_CHILDREN (*this->m_node).quick_push (this->m_ops[0]);
/* And then rewrite the node itself. */
- complex_pattern::build (vinfo);
+ build_common (vinfo, rep);
}
/*******************************************************************************
--
2.51.0
