https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111720
--- Comment #26 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> --- On Thu, 19 Oct 2023, juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111720 > > --- Comment #25 from JuzheZhong <juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai> --- > (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #24) > > On Thu, 19 Oct 2023, juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai wrote: > > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111720 > > > > > > --- Comment #23 from JuzheZhong <juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai> --- > > > (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #22) > > > > On Thu, 19 Oct 2023, juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai wrote: > > > > > > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111720 > > > > > > > > > > --- Comment #21 from JuzheZhong <juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai> --- > > > > > (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #20) > > > > > > On Thu, 19 Oct 2023, juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111720 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- Comment #19 from JuzheZhong <juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai> --- > > > > > > > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #18) > > > > > > > > With RVV you have intrinsic calls in GIMPLE so nothing to > > > > > > > > optimize: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vbool8_t fn () > > > > > > > > { > > > > > > > > vbool8_t vmask; > > > > > > > > vuint8m1_t vand_m; > > > > > > > > vuint8m1_t varr; > > > > > > > > uint8_t arr[32]; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <bb 2> [local count: 1073741824]: > > > > > > > > arr = > > > > > > > > "\x01\x02\x07\x01\x03\x04\x05\x03\x01\x00\x01\x02\x04\x04\t\t\x01\x02\x07\x01 > > > > > > > > \x03\x04\x05\x03\x01\x00\x01\x02\x04\x04\t\t"; > > > > > > > > varr_3 = __riscv_vle8_v_u8m1 (&arr, 32); [return slot > > > > > > > > optimization] > > > > > > > > vand_m_4 = __riscv_vand_vx_u8m1 (varr_3, 1, 32); [return slot > > > > > > > > optimization] > > > > > > > > vmask_5 = __riscv_vreinterpret_v_u8m1_b8 (vand_m_4); [return > > > > > > > > slot > > > > > > > > optimization] > > > > > > > > <retval> = vmask_5; > > > > > > > > arr ={v} {CLOBBER(eol)}; > > > > > > > > return <retval>; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and on RTL I see lots of UNSPECs, RTL opts cannot do anything > > > > > > > > with those. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is what Andrew said already. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok. I wonder why this issue is gone when I change it into: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > arr as static > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://godbolt.org/z/Tdoshdfr6 > > > > > > > > > > > > Because the stacik initialization isn't required then. > > > > > > > > > > I have experiment with a simplifed pattern: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (insn 14 13 15 2 (set (reg/v:RVVM1QI 134 [ varr ]) > > > > > (if_then_else:RVVM1QI (unspec:RVVMF8BI [ > > > > > (const_vector:RVVMF8BI repeat [ > > > > > (const_int 1 [0x1]) > > > > > ]) > > > > > (reg:DI 143) > > > > > (const_int 2 [0x2]) repeated x2 > > > > > (const_int 0 [0]) > > > > > (reg:SI 66 vl) > > > > > (reg:SI 67 vtype) > > > > > ] UNSPEC_VPREDICATE) > > > > > (mem:RVVM1QI (reg:DI 142) [0 S[16, 16] A8]) > > > > > (const_vector:RVVM1QI repeat [ > > > > > (const_int 0 [0]) > > > > > ]))) "rvv.c":5:23 1476 {*pred_movrvvm1qi} > > > > > (nil)) > > > > > (insn 15 14 16 2 (set (reg:DI 144) > > > > > (const_int 32 [0x20])) "rvv.c":6:5 206 {*movdi_64bit} > > > > > (nil)) > > > > > (insn 16 15 0 2 (set (mem:RVVM1QI (reg/v/f:DI 135 [ out ]) [0 S[16, > > > > > 16] A8]) > > > > > (if_then_else:RVVM1QI (unspec:RVVMF8BI [ > > > > > (const_vector:RVVMF8BI repeat [ > > > > > (const_int 1 [0x1]) > > > > > ]) > > > > > (reg:DI 144) > > > > > (const_int 0 [0]) > > > > > (reg:SI 66 vl) > > > > > (reg:SI 67 vtype) > > > > > ] UNSPEC_VPREDICATE) > > > > > (reg/v:RVVM1QI 134 [ varr ]) > > > > > (mem:RVVM1QI (reg/v/f:DI 135 [ out ]) [0 S[16, 16] A8]))) > > > > > "rvv.c":6:5 1592 {pred_storervvm1qi} > > > > > (nil)) > > > > > > > > > > You can see there is only one UNSPEC now. Still has redundant stack > > > > > transferring. > > > > > > > > > > Is it because the pattern too complicated? > > > > > > > > It's because it has an UNSPEC in it - that makes it have target > > > > specific (unknown to the middle-end) behavior so nothing can > > > > be optimized here. > > > > > > > > Specifically passes likely refuse to replace MEM operands in > > > > such a construct. > > > > > > I saw ARM SVE load/store intrinsic also have UNSPEC. > > > They don't have such issues. > > > > > > https://godbolt.org/z/fsW6Ko93z > > > > > > But their patterns are much simplier than RVV patterns. > > > > > > I am still trying find a way to optimize the RVV pattern for that. > > > However, it seems to be very diffcult since we are trying to merge each > > > type > > > intrinsics into same single pattern to avoid explosion of the > > > insn-ouput.cc > > > and insn-emit.cc > > > > They also expose the semantics to GIMPLE instead of keeping > > builtin function calls: > > > > void fn (svbool_t pg, uint8_t * out) > > { > > svuint8_t varr; > > static uint8_t arr[32] = > > "\x01\x02\x07\x01\x03\x04\x05\x03\x01\x00\x01\x02\x04\x04\t\t\x01\x02\x07\x01 > > \x03\x04\x05\x03\x01\x00\x01\x02\x04\x04\t\t"; > > > > <bb 2> [local count: 1073741824]: > > varr_3 = .MASK_LOAD (&arr, 8B, pg_2(D)); > > .MASK_STORE (out_4(D), 8B, pg_2(D), varr_3); [tail call] > > return; > > Yeah. I noticed but the autovectorization patterns doesn't match RVV > intrinsics. > So I can't fold them into MASK_LEN_LOAD... since RVV intrinsics are more > complicated. > > It seems that it's impossible that we can't fix it in middle-end. > Maybe we should add a RISC-V specific PASS to optimize it? You can look what combine tries to recognize, maybe it needs some helper patterns. Other than that, what's the issue with GIMPLE and the intrinsics?
