[ARM] PR66791: Replace builtins for vdup_n and vmov_n intrinsics

Christophe Lyon christophe.lyon.oss@gmail.com
Thu Aug 12 13:34:34 GMT 2021


On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 1:54 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni <
prathamesh.kulkarni@linaro.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 at 22:23, Christophe Lyon
> <christophe.lyon.oss@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 6:29 PM Kyrylo Tkachov via Gcc-patches <
> gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: Prathamesh Kulkarni <prathamesh.kulkarni@linaro.org>
> >> > Sent: 24 June 2021 12:11
> >> > To: gcc Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Kyrylo Tkachov
> >> > <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com>
> >> > Subject: [ARM] PR66791: Replace builtins for vdup_n and vmov_n
> intrinsics
> >> >
> >> > Hi,
> >> > This patch replaces builtins for vdup_n and vmov_n.
> >> > The patch results in regression for pr51534.c.
> >> > Consider following function:
> >> >
> >> > uint8x8_t f1 (uint8x8_t a) {
> >> >   return vcgt_u8(a, vdup_n_u8(0));
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > code-gen before patch:
> >> > f1:
> >> >         vmov.i32  d16, #0  @ v8qi
> >> >         vcgt.u8     d0, d0, d16
> >> >         bx             lr
> >> >
> >> > code-gen after patch:
> >> > f1:
> >> >         vceq.i8 d0, d0, #0
> >> >         vmvn    d0, d0
> >> >         bx         lr
> >> >
> >> > I am not sure which one is better tho ?
> >>
> >
> > Hi Prathamesh,
> >
> > This patch introduces a regression on non-hardfp configs (eg
> arm-linux-gnueabi or arm-eabi):
> > FAIL:  gcc:gcc.target/arm/arm.exp=gcc.target/arm/pr51534.c
> scan-assembler-times vmov.i32[ \t]+[dD][0-9]+, #0xffffffff 3
> > FAIL:  gcc:gcc.target/arm/arm.exp=gcc.target/arm/pr51534.c
> scan-assembler-times vmov.i32[ \t]+[qQ][0-9]+, #4294967295 3
> >
> > Can you fix this?
> The issue is, for following test:
>
> #include <arm_neon.h>
>
> uint8x8_t f1 (uint8x8_t a) {
>   return vcge_u8(a, vdup_n_u8(0));
> }
>
> armhf code-gen:
> f1:
>         vmov.i32  d0, #0xffffffff  @ v8qi
>         bx            lr
>
> arm softfp code-gen:
> f1:
>         mov     r0, #-1
>         mov     r1, #-1
>         bx      lr
>
> The code-gen for both is same upto split2 pass:
>
> (insn 10 6 11 2 (set (reg/i:V8QI 16 s0)
>         (const_vector:V8QI [
>                 (const_int -1 [0xffffffffffffffff]) repeated x8
>             ])) "foo.c":5:1 1052 {*neon_movv8qi}
>      (expr_list:REG_EQUAL (const_vector:V8QI [
>                 (const_int -1 [0xffffffffffffffff]) repeated x8
>             ])
>         (nil)))
> (insn 11 10 13 2 (use (reg/i:V8QI 16 s0)) "foo.c":5:1 -1
>      (nil))
>
> and for softfp target, split2 pass splits the assignment to r0 and r1:
>
> (insn 15 6 16 2 (set (reg:SI 0 r0)
>         (const_int -1 [0xffffffffffffffff])) "foo.c":5:1 740
> {*thumb2_movsi_vfp}
>      (nil))
> (insn 16 15 11 2 (set (reg:SI 1 r1 [+4 ])
>         (const_int -1 [0xffffffffffffffff])) "foo.c":5:1 740
> {*thumb2_movsi_vfp}
>      (nil))
> (insn 11 16 13 2 (use (reg/i:V8QI 0 r0)) "foo.c":5:1 -1
>      (nil))
>
> I suppose we could use a dg-scan for r[0-9]+, #-1 for softfp targets ?
>
> Yes, probably, or try with check-function-bodies.

 Christophe

Thanks,
> Prathamesh
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Christophe
> >
> >
> >>
> >> I think they're equivalent in practice, in any case the patch itself is
> good (move away from RTL builtins).
> >> Ok.
> >> Thanks,
> >> Kyrill
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Also, this patch regressed bf16_dup.c on arm-linux-gnueabi,
> >> > which is due to a missed opt in lowering. I had filed it as
> >> > PR98435, and posted a fix for it here:
> >> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-June/572648.html
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Prathamesh
>


More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list