diff mbox series

middle-end: replace GET_MODE_WIDER_MODE with GET_MODE_NEXT_MODE

Message ID patch-16595-tamar@arm.com
State Committed
Headers
Series middle-end: replace GET_MODE_WIDER_MODE with GET_MODE_NEXT_MODE |

Commit Message

Tamar Christina Nov. 15, 2022, 10:33 a.m. UTC 
  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

Richard Sandiford Nov. 15, 2022, 11:58 a.m. UTC | #1 
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
Tamar Christina Nov. 15, 2022, 1:15 p.m. UTC | #2 
> -----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
Richard Sandiford Nov. 15, 2022, 2:54 p.m. UTC | #3 
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
Jeff Law Nov. 15, 2022, 4:23 p.m. UTC | #4 
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
Richard Biener Nov. 16, 2022, 12:19 p.m. UTC | #5 
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
>
diff mbox series

Patch

--- 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)))