middle-end: replace GET_MODE_WIDER_MODE with GET_MODE_NEXT_MODE
Checks
Commit Message
Hi All,
After the fix to the addsub patch yesterday for bootstrap I had only regtested on x86.
While looking today it seemed the new tests were failing, this was caused
by a change in the behavior of the GET_MODE_WIDER_MODE macro on trunk.
This patch fixes that issue. Sorry for the mess, have rebased all branches now.
Bootstrapped Regtested on aarch64-none-linux-gnu and no issues.
Ok for master?
Thanks,
Tamar
gcc/ChangeLog:
* match.pd: Replace GET_MODE_WIDER_MODE with
GET_MODE_NEXT_MODE.
--- inline copy of patch --
diff --git a/gcc/match.pd b/gcc/match.pd
index 1b0ab7cf60fa4772fbe8304c622b0b8fab1bdefa..28191a992039c6f3a1dab5f7c0e35dd58dc47092 100644
--
diff --git a/gcc/match.pd b/gcc/match.pd
index 1b0ab7cf60fa4772fbe8304c622b0b8fab1bdefa..28191a992039c6f3a1dab5f7c0e35dd58dc47092 100644
--- a/gcc/match.pd
+++ b/gcc/match.pd
@@ -7997,7 +7997,7 @@ and,
machine_mode wide_mode;
}
(if (sel.series_p (0, 2, 0, 2)
- && GET_MODE_WIDER_MODE (vec_mode).exists (&wide_mode)
+ && GET_MODE_NEXT_MODE (vec_mode).exists (&wide_mode)
&& VECTOR_MODE_P (wide_mode)
&& (GET_MODE_UNIT_BITSIZE (vec_mode) * 2
== GET_MODE_UNIT_BITSIZE (wide_mode)))
Comments
Tamar Christina via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
> Hi All,
>
> After the fix to the addsub patch yesterday for bootstrap I had only regtested on x86.
> While looking today it seemed the new tests were failing, this was caused
> by a change in the behavior of the GET_MODE_WIDER_MODE macro on trunk.
>
> This patch fixes that issue. Sorry for the mess, have rebased all branches now.
>
> Bootstrapped Regtested on aarch64-none-linux-gnu and no issues.
>
> Ok for master?
>
> Thanks,
> Tamar
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> * match.pd: Replace GET_MODE_WIDER_MODE with
> GET_MODE_NEXT_MODE.
>
> --- inline copy of patch --
> diff --git a/gcc/match.pd b/gcc/match.pd
> index 1b0ab7cf60fa4772fbe8304c622b0b8fab1bdefa..28191a992039c6f3a1dab5f7c0e35dd58dc47092 100644
> --- a/gcc/match.pd
> +++ b/gcc/match.pd
> @@ -7997,7 +7997,7 @@ and,
> machine_mode wide_mode;
> }
> (if (sel.series_p (0, 2, 0, 2)
> - && GET_MODE_WIDER_MODE (vec_mode).exists (&wide_mode)
> + && GET_MODE_NEXT_MODE (vec_mode).exists (&wide_mode)
> && VECTOR_MODE_P (wide_mode)
> && (GET_MODE_UNIT_BITSIZE (vec_mode) * 2
> == GET_MODE_UNIT_BITSIZE (wide_mode)))
Does anything guarantee that the next mode will be the right one?
It think it would be safer to replace the last three && conditions with:
&& GET_MODE_2XWIDER_MODE (GET_MODE_INNER (vec_mode)).exists (&wide_elt_mode)
&& multiple_p (GET_MODE_NUNITS (vec_mode), 2, &wide_nunits)
&& related_vector_mode (vec_mode, wide_elt_mode,
wide_nunits).exists (&wide_mode)
Thanks,
Richard
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 11:59 AM
> To: Tamar Christina via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
> Cc: Tamar Christina <Tamar.Christina@arm.com>; nd <nd@arm.com>;
> rguenther@suse.de; jlaw@ventanamicro.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH]middle-end: replace GET_MODE_WIDER_MODE with
> GET_MODE_NEXT_MODE
>
> Tamar Christina via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > After the fix to the addsub patch yesterday for bootstrap I had only
> regtested on x86.
> > While looking today it seemed the new tests were failing, this was
> > caused by a change in the behavior of the GET_MODE_WIDER_MODE
> macro on trunk.
> >
> > This patch fixes that issue. Sorry for the mess, have rebased all branches
> now.
> >
> > Bootstrapped Regtested on aarch64-none-linux-gnu and no issues.
> >
> > Ok for master?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Tamar
> >
> > gcc/ChangeLog:
> >
> > * match.pd: Replace GET_MODE_WIDER_MODE with
> > GET_MODE_NEXT_MODE.
> >
> > --- inline copy of patch --
> > diff --git a/gcc/match.pd b/gcc/match.pd index
> >
> 1b0ab7cf60fa4772fbe8304c622b0b8fab1bdefa..28191a992039c6f3a1dab5f7c0
> e3
> > 5dd58dc47092 100644
> > --- a/gcc/match.pd
> > +++ b/gcc/match.pd
> > @@ -7997,7 +7997,7 @@ and,
> > machine_mode wide_mode;
> > }
> > (if (sel.series_p (0, 2, 0, 2)
> > - && GET_MODE_WIDER_MODE (vec_mode).exists (&wide_mode)
> > + && GET_MODE_NEXT_MODE (vec_mode).exists (&wide_mode)
> > && VECTOR_MODE_P (wide_mode)
> > && (GET_MODE_UNIT_BITSIZE (vec_mode) * 2
> > == GET_MODE_UNIT_BITSIZE (wide_mode)))
>
> Does anything guarantee that the next mode will be the right one?
> It think it would be safer to replace the last three && conditions with:
>
> && GET_MODE_2XWIDER_MODE (GET_MODE_INNER (vec_mode)).exists
> (&wide_elt_mode)
> && multiple_p (GET_MODE_NUNITS (vec_mode), 2, &wide_nunits)
> && related_vector_mode (vec_mode, wide_elt_mode,
> wide_nunits).exists (&wide_mode)
I see, respun patch accordingly.
Ok for master?
--- inline copy of patch ---
diff --git a/gcc/match.pd b/gcc/match.pd
index 1b0ab7cf60fa4772fbe8304c622b0b8fab1bdefa..82f05bbc912e4f80f3984d930c4a8dcb010136e1 100644
--- a/gcc/match.pd
+++ b/gcc/match.pd
@@ -7995,12 +7995,15 @@ and,
vec_perm_indices sel (builder, 2, nelts);
machine_mode vec_mode = TYPE_MODE (type);
machine_mode wide_mode;
+ scalar_mode wide_elt_mode;
+ poly_uint64 wide_nunits;
+ scalar_mode inner_mode = GET_MODE_INNER (vec_mode);
}
(if (sel.series_p (0, 2, 0, 2)
- && GET_MODE_WIDER_MODE (vec_mode).exists (&wide_mode)
- && VECTOR_MODE_P (wide_mode)
- && (GET_MODE_UNIT_BITSIZE (vec_mode) * 2
- == GET_MODE_UNIT_BITSIZE (wide_mode)))
+ && GET_MODE_2XWIDER_MODE (inner_mode).exists (&wide_elt_mode)
+ && multiple_p (GET_MODE_NUNITS (vec_mode), 2, &wide_nunits)
+ && related_vector_mode (vec_mode, wide_elt_mode,
+ wide_nunits).exists (&wide_mode))
(with
{
tree stype
Tamar Christina <Tamar.Christina@arm.com> writes:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 11:59 AM
>> To: Tamar Christina via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
>> Cc: Tamar Christina <Tamar.Christina@arm.com>; nd <nd@arm.com>;
>> rguenther@suse.de; jlaw@ventanamicro.com
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH]middle-end: replace GET_MODE_WIDER_MODE with
>> GET_MODE_NEXT_MODE
>>
>> Tamar Christina via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
>> > Hi All,
>> >
>> > After the fix to the addsub patch yesterday for bootstrap I had only
>> regtested on x86.
>> > While looking today it seemed the new tests were failing, this was
>> > caused by a change in the behavior of the GET_MODE_WIDER_MODE
>> macro on trunk.
>> >
>> > This patch fixes that issue. Sorry for the mess, have rebased all branches
>> now.
>> >
>> > Bootstrapped Regtested on aarch64-none-linux-gnu and no issues.
>> >
>> > Ok for master?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Tamar
>> >
>> > gcc/ChangeLog:
>> >
>> > * match.pd: Replace GET_MODE_WIDER_MODE with
>> > GET_MODE_NEXT_MODE.
>> >
>> > --- inline copy of patch --
>> > diff --git a/gcc/match.pd b/gcc/match.pd index
>> >
>> 1b0ab7cf60fa4772fbe8304c622b0b8fab1bdefa..28191a992039c6f3a1dab5f7c0
>> e3
>> > 5dd58dc47092 100644
>> > --- a/gcc/match.pd
>> > +++ b/gcc/match.pd
>> > @@ -7997,7 +7997,7 @@ and,
>> > machine_mode wide_mode;
>> > }
>> > (if (sel.series_p (0, 2, 0, 2)
>> > - && GET_MODE_WIDER_MODE (vec_mode).exists (&wide_mode)
>> > + && GET_MODE_NEXT_MODE (vec_mode).exists (&wide_mode)
>> > && VECTOR_MODE_P (wide_mode)
>> > && (GET_MODE_UNIT_BITSIZE (vec_mode) * 2
>> > == GET_MODE_UNIT_BITSIZE (wide_mode)))
>>
>> Does anything guarantee that the next mode will be the right one?
>> It think it would be safer to replace the last three && conditions with:
>>
>> && GET_MODE_2XWIDER_MODE (GET_MODE_INNER (vec_mode)).exists
>> (&wide_elt_mode)
>> && multiple_p (GET_MODE_NUNITS (vec_mode), 2, &wide_nunits)
>> && related_vector_mode (vec_mode, wide_elt_mode,
>> wide_nunits).exists (&wide_mode)
>
> I see, respun patch accordingly.
LGTM, but I'm nervous when it comes to match.pd stuff so I'd prefer
Richi or Jeff to have the final say.
Thanks,
Richard
>
> Ok for master?
>
> --- inline copy of patch ---
>
> diff --git a/gcc/match.pd b/gcc/match.pd
> index 1b0ab7cf60fa4772fbe8304c622b0b8fab1bdefa..82f05bbc912e4f80f3984d930c4a8dcb010136e1 100644
> --- a/gcc/match.pd
> +++ b/gcc/match.pd
> @@ -7995,12 +7995,15 @@ and,
> vec_perm_indices sel (builder, 2, nelts);
> machine_mode vec_mode = TYPE_MODE (type);
> machine_mode wide_mode;
> + scalar_mode wide_elt_mode;
> + poly_uint64 wide_nunits;
> + scalar_mode inner_mode = GET_MODE_INNER (vec_mode);
> }
> (if (sel.series_p (0, 2, 0, 2)
> - && GET_MODE_WIDER_MODE (vec_mode).exists (&wide_mode)
> - && VECTOR_MODE_P (wide_mode)
> - && (GET_MODE_UNIT_BITSIZE (vec_mode) * 2
> - == GET_MODE_UNIT_BITSIZE (wide_mode)))
> + && GET_MODE_2XWIDER_MODE (inner_mode).exists (&wide_elt_mode)
> + && multiple_p (GET_MODE_NUNITS (vec_mode), 2, &wide_nunits)
> + && related_vector_mode (vec_mode, wide_elt_mode,
> + wide_nunits).exists (&wide_mode))
> (with
> {
> tree stype
On 11/15/22 07:54, Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Tamar Christina <Tamar.Christina@arm.com> writes:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 11:59 AM
>>> To: Tamar Christina via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
>>> Cc: Tamar Christina <Tamar.Christina@arm.com>; nd <nd@arm.com>;
>>> rguenther@suse.de; jlaw@ventanamicro.com
>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH]middle-end: replace GET_MODE_WIDER_MODE with
>>> GET_MODE_NEXT_MODE
>>>
>>> Tamar Christina via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> After the fix to the addsub patch yesterday for bootstrap I had only
>>> regtested on x86.
>>>> While looking today it seemed the new tests were failing, this was
>>>> caused by a change in the behavior of the GET_MODE_WIDER_MODE
>>> macro on trunk.
>>>> This patch fixes that issue. Sorry for the mess, have rebased all branches
>>> now.
>>>> Bootstrapped Regtested on aarch64-none-linux-gnu and no issues.
>>>>
>>>> Ok for master?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Tamar
>>>>
>>>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>>>
>>>> * match.pd: Replace GET_MODE_WIDER_MODE with
>>>> GET_MODE_NEXT_MODE.
>>>>
>>>> --- inline copy of patch --
>>>> diff --git a/gcc/match.pd b/gcc/match.pd index
>>>>
>>> 1b0ab7cf60fa4772fbe8304c622b0b8fab1bdefa..28191a992039c6f3a1dab5f7c0
>>> e3
>>>> 5dd58dc47092 100644
>>>> --- a/gcc/match.pd
>>>> +++ b/gcc/match.pd
>>>> @@ -7997,7 +7997,7 @@ and,
>>>> machine_mode wide_mode;
>>>> }
>>>> (if (sel.series_p (0, 2, 0, 2)
>>>> - && GET_MODE_WIDER_MODE (vec_mode).exists (&wide_mode)
>>>> + && GET_MODE_NEXT_MODE (vec_mode).exists (&wide_mode)
>>>> && VECTOR_MODE_P (wide_mode)
>>>> && (GET_MODE_UNIT_BITSIZE (vec_mode) * 2
>>>> == GET_MODE_UNIT_BITSIZE (wide_mode)))
>>> Does anything guarantee that the next mode will be the right one?
>>> It think it would be safer to replace the last three && conditions with:
>>>
>>> && GET_MODE_2XWIDER_MODE (GET_MODE_INNER (vec_mode)).exists
>>> (&wide_elt_mode)
>>> && multiple_p (GET_MODE_NUNITS (vec_mode), 2, &wide_nunits)
>>> && related_vector_mode (vec_mode, wide_elt_mode,
>>> wide_nunits).exists (&wide_mode)
>> I see, respun patch accordingly.
> LGTM, but I'm nervous when it comes to match.pd stuff so I'd prefer
> Richi or Jeff to have the final say.
It's just a matter of finding that 2X wider mode to make the
transformation possible. So I don't see any concerns here.
jeff
On Tue, 15 Nov 2022, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Tamar Christina <Tamar.Christina@arm.com> writes:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 11:59 AM
> >> To: Tamar Christina via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
> >> Cc: Tamar Christina <Tamar.Christina@arm.com>; nd <nd@arm.com>;
> >> rguenther@suse.de; jlaw@ventanamicro.com
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH]middle-end: replace GET_MODE_WIDER_MODE with
> >> GET_MODE_NEXT_MODE
> >>
> >> Tamar Christina via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
> >> > Hi All,
> >> >
> >> > After the fix to the addsub patch yesterday for bootstrap I had only
> >> regtested on x86.
> >> > While looking today it seemed the new tests were failing, this was
> >> > caused by a change in the behavior of the GET_MODE_WIDER_MODE
> >> macro on trunk.
> >> >
> >> > This patch fixes that issue. Sorry for the mess, have rebased all branches
> >> now.
> >> >
> >> > Bootstrapped Regtested on aarch64-none-linux-gnu and no issues.
> >> >
> >> > Ok for master?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Tamar
> >> >
> >> > gcc/ChangeLog:
> >> >
> >> > * match.pd: Replace GET_MODE_WIDER_MODE with
> >> > GET_MODE_NEXT_MODE.
> >> >
> >> > --- inline copy of patch --
> >> > diff --git a/gcc/match.pd b/gcc/match.pd index
> >> >
> >> 1b0ab7cf60fa4772fbe8304c622b0b8fab1bdefa..28191a992039c6f3a1dab5f7c0
> >> e3
> >> > 5dd58dc47092 100644
> >> > --- a/gcc/match.pd
> >> > +++ b/gcc/match.pd
> >> > @@ -7997,7 +7997,7 @@ and,
> >> > machine_mode wide_mode;
> >> > }
> >> > (if (sel.series_p (0, 2, 0, 2)
> >> > - && GET_MODE_WIDER_MODE (vec_mode).exists (&wide_mode)
> >> > + && GET_MODE_NEXT_MODE (vec_mode).exists (&wide_mode)
> >> > && VECTOR_MODE_P (wide_mode)
> >> > && (GET_MODE_UNIT_BITSIZE (vec_mode) * 2
> >> > == GET_MODE_UNIT_BITSIZE (wide_mode)))
> >>
> >> Does anything guarantee that the next mode will be the right one?
> >> It think it would be safer to replace the last three && conditions with:
> >>
> >> && GET_MODE_2XWIDER_MODE (GET_MODE_INNER (vec_mode)).exists
> >> (&wide_elt_mode)
> >> && multiple_p (GET_MODE_NUNITS (vec_mode), 2, &wide_nunits)
> >> && related_vector_mode (vec_mode, wide_elt_mode,
> >> wide_nunits).exists (&wide_mode)
> >
> > I see, respun patch accordingly.
>
> LGTM, but I'm nervous when it comes to match.pd stuff so I'd prefer
> Richi or Jeff to have the final say.
I see nothing wrong here, so OK.
Richard.
> Thanks,
> Richard
>
> >
> > Ok for master?
> >
> > --- inline copy of patch ---
> >
> > diff --git a/gcc/match.pd b/gcc/match.pd
> > index 1b0ab7cf60fa4772fbe8304c622b0b8fab1bdefa..82f05bbc912e4f80f3984d930c4a8dcb010136e1 100644
> > --- a/gcc/match.pd
> > +++ b/gcc/match.pd
> > @@ -7995,12 +7995,15 @@ and,
> > vec_perm_indices sel (builder, 2, nelts);
> > machine_mode vec_mode = TYPE_MODE (type);
> > machine_mode wide_mode;
> > + scalar_mode wide_elt_mode;
> > + poly_uint64 wide_nunits;
> > + scalar_mode inner_mode = GET_MODE_INNER (vec_mode);
> > }
> > (if (sel.series_p (0, 2, 0, 2)
> > - && GET_MODE_WIDER_MODE (vec_mode).exists (&wide_mode)
> > - && VECTOR_MODE_P (wide_mode)
> > - && (GET_MODE_UNIT_BITSIZE (vec_mode) * 2
> > - == GET_MODE_UNIT_BITSIZE (wide_mode)))
> > + && GET_MODE_2XWIDER_MODE (inner_mode).exists (&wide_elt_mode)
> > + && multiple_p (GET_MODE_NUNITS (vec_mode), 2, &wide_nunits)
> > + && related_vector_mode (vec_mode, wide_elt_mode,
> > + wide_nunits).exists (&wide_mode))
> > (with
> > {
> > tree stype
>
@@ -7997,7 +7997,7 @@ and,
machine_mode wide_mode;
}
(if (sel.series_p (0, 2, 0, 2)
- && GET_MODE_WIDER_MODE (vec_mode).exists (&wide_mode)
+ && GET_MODE_NEXT_MODE (vec_mode).exists (&wide_mode)
&& VECTOR_MODE_P (wide_mode)
&& (GET_MODE_UNIT_BITSIZE (vec_mode) * 2
== GET_MODE_UNIT_BITSIZE (wide_mode)))