https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110751
--- Comment #16 from xuli1 at eswincomputing dot com <xuli1 at eswincomputing dot com> --- (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #12) > On Thu, 20 Jul 2023, juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai wrote: > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110751 > > > > --- Comment #11 from JuzheZhong <juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai> --- > > (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #10) > > > On Thu, 20 Jul 2023, juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai wrote: > > > > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110751 > > > > > > > > --- Comment #9 from JuzheZhong <juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai> --- > > > > (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #8) > > > > > On Thu, 20 Jul 2023, juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110751 > > > > > > > > > > > > --- Comment #6 from JuzheZhong <juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai> --- > > > > > > (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #5) > > > > > > > On Thu, 20 Jul 2023, kito at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110751 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- Comment #4 from Kito Cheng <kito at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > > > > > > > > > OK, so TA is either merge or all-ones. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, your understand is correct, just few more detail is that > > > > > > > > can be mixing > > > > > > > > with either merge or all-ones. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > e.g. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > An 4 x i32 vector with mask 1 0 1 0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Op = | a | b | c | d | > > > > > > > > Mask = | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the result could be: > > > > > > > > | a | b | c | d | > > > > > > > > | a | all-1 | c | d | > > > > > > > > | a | all-1 | c | all-1 | > > > > > > > > | a | all-1 | c | d | > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not sure how you can use MA at the moment since you specify > > > > > > > > > an existing operand in your target hook. As far as > > > > > > > > > I can see there's no value the target hook can provide that > > > > > > > > > matches any > > > > > > > > of the implementation semantics? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's the key point - we don't know how to return an undefined > > > > > > > > value there, we > > > > > > > > have intrinsic can generate undefined value, but it seems > > > > > > > > impossible to > > > > > > > > generate that within the hook. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, neither *A nor *U can be specified currently. As said for > > > > > > > 'merge' > > > > > > > we would need another operand. And since 'unspecified' is either > > > > > > > merge > > > > > > > or all-ones we can't express that either. It's not really > > > > > > > 'undefined' > > > > > > > either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Note this also means the proposal to define a .MASK_LOAD as > > > > > > > zeroing > > > > > > > masked elements is not going to work for RISC-V, instead we'd need > > > > > > > an explicit 'else' value there as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In fact we could follow .MASK_LOAD for .COND_* and simply omit > > > > > > > the 'else' operand for the case of 'unspecified', no? GIMPLE > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > be fine omitting it, not sure whether there's precedent for > > > > > > > optabs with optional operands? > > > > > > > > > > > > For RVV auto-vectorization, we define COND_LEN_* has else value in > > > > > > the > > > > > > arguments. But the else value is not always the real value we need > > > > > > to > > > > > > care about, this is the code from vectorizable_operation: > > > > > > > > > > > > if (reduc_idx >= 0) > > > > > > { > > > > > > /* Perform the operation on active elements only and > > > > > > take > > > > > > inactive elements from the reduction chain input. > > > > > > */ > > > > > > gcc_assert (!vop2); > > > > > > vops.quick_push (reduc_idx == 1 ? vop1 : vop0); > > > > > > } > > > > > > else > > > > > > { > > > > > > auto else_value = targetm.preferred_else_value > > > > > > (cond_fn, vectype, vops.length () - 1, &vops[1]); > > > > > > vops.quick_push (else_value); > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can see for reduction operations, the else value is the real > > > > > > value we > > > > > > need to depend on, we should use "TU" (Undisturbed or merge value) > > > > > > in RVV. > > > > > > Meaning the inactive elements should remain the "old" value that's > > > > > > why we > > > > > > use "TU". > > > > > > > > > > Sure. For the above case that's obviously correct. > > > > > > > > > > > However, for single binary operations for example, division, we > > > > > > just only > > > > > > need to forbid the division operations of the inactive elements in > > > > > > the > > > > > > hardware, we don't care the value of the inactive elements value. > > > > > > so in > > > > > > this case, we want to use "TA". In this case, we want the else > > > > > > value be > > > > > > a meaningless placeholder in Gimple IR (similar to "undef" or > > > > > > "poison" in > > > > > > LLVM). > > > > > > > > > > > > Such meaningless placeholder in the argument of Gimple IR, can be > > > > > > beneficail > > > > > > for RVV for 2 following reasons: > > > > > > 1. allow us use "TA". > > > > > > 2. Doesn't consume a register. > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure whether we can represent such placeholder in Gimple > > > > > > IR. > > > > > > > > > > As said, just drop the 'else' operand and assign 'unspecified' to its > > > > > semantics? Like we do for .LEN_MASK_LOAD where there isn't any > > > > > 'else' value and I presume you'll use 'TA' as well there? > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, LEN_MASK_LOAD doesn't have else value, then we use "TA". > > > > > > > > LEN_MASK_LOAD always doesn't have else value. > > > > But COND_LEN_xxx, sometimes has else value (for reduction), > > > > some times doesn't have else value (for division). > > > > > > > > Could you tell me how to simulate COND_LEN_xxx that doesn't have else > > > > value > > > > like > > > > LEN_MASK_LOAD in consider COND_LEN_xxx pattens may be used in reduction > > > > need > > > > else value? > > > > > > In your target hook simply return NULL_TREE? The expander should then > > > omit the else value and you'd have two define_insn, one without > > > the else value using 'TA' and one with using 'TU' (where it would > > > match_operand 0). > > > > > > Oh, I was thinking returning NULL_TREE will cause ICE. > > It might need fixups (create the call with one less parameter), > but I think it should be the easiest way to go. > > > But it worth a try. > > > > @Li Xu: Could you have a try by followings Richard's suggestion and get > > back to us? > > > > Thanks. > > > > OK.
