Re: [i386] scalar ops that preserve the high part of a vector

[Marc Glisse <marc dot glisse at inria dot fr>]

On Sun, 14 Oct 2012, Marc Glisse wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Oct 2012, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Marc Glisse <marc.glisse@inria.fr> wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > this patch provides an alternate pattern to let combine recognize scalar
> > > operations that preserve the high part of a vector. If the strategy is all
> > > right, I could do the same for more operations (mul, div, ...). Something
> > > similar is also possible for V4SF (different pattern though), but probably
> > > not as useful.
> >
> > But, we _do_ have vec_merge pattern that describes the operation.
> > Adding another one to each operation just to satisfy combine is IMO
> > not correct approach.
>
> At some point I wondered about _replacing_ the existing pattern, so there 
> would only be one ;-)
>
> The vec_merge pattern takes as argument 2 vectors instead of a vector and a 
> scalar, and describes the operation as a vector operation where we drop half 
> of the result, instead of a scalar operation where we re-add the top half of 
> the vector. I don't know if that's the most convenient choice. Adding code in 
> simplify-rtx to replace vec_merge with vec_concat / vec_select might be 
> easier than the other way around.
>
>
> If the middle-end somehow gave us:
> (plus X (vec_concat Y 0))
> it would seem a bit strange to add an optimization that turns it into:
> (vec_merge (plus X (subreg:V2DF Y)) X 1)
> but then producing:
> (vec_concat (plus (vec_select X 0) Y) (vec_select X 1))
> would be strange as well.
> (ignoring the signed zero issues here)
>
> > I'd rather see generic RTX simplification that
> > simplifies your proposed pattern to vec_merge pattern.
>
> Ok, I'll see what I can do.
>
> > Also, as you mention in PR54855, Comment #5, the approach is too fragile...
>
> I am not sure I can make the RTX simplification much less fragile... Whenever 
> I see (vec_concat X (vec_select Y 1)), I would have to check whether X is 
> some (possibly large) tree of scalar computations involving Y[0], move it all 
> to vec_merge computations, and fix other users of some of those scalars to 
> now use S[0]. Seems too hard, I would stop at single-operation X that is used 
> only once. Besides, the gain is larger in proportion when there is a single 
> operation :-)
>
> Thank you for your comments,

Hello,

I experimented with the simplify-rtx transformation you suggested, see:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54855

It works when the argument is a register, but not for memory (which is 
where the constant is in the testcase). And the description of the 
operation in sse.md does seem problematic. It says the second argument is:

            (match_operand:VF_128 2 "nonimmediate_operand" "xm,xm"))

but Intel's documentation says "The source operand can be an XMM register 
or a 64-bit memory location", not quite the same.

Do you think the .md description should really stay this way, or could we 
change it to something that better reflects "64-bit memory location"?

--
Marc Glisse