On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 1:39 PM Richard Biener
<richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 1:35 PM Richard Biener
> <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 9:49 AM Marc Glisse <marc.gli...@inria.fr> wrote:
> > >
> > > When vector comparisons were forced to use vec_cond_expr, we lost a number
> > > of optimizations (my fault for not adding enough testcases to prevent
> > > that). This patch tries to unwrap vec_cond_expr a bit so some
> > > optimizations can still happen.
> > >
> > > I wasn't planning to add all those transformations together, but adding
> > > one caused a regression, whose fix introduced a second regression, etc.
> > >
> > > Using a simple fold_binary internally looks like an ok compromise to me.
> > > It remains cheap enough (not recursive, and vector instructions are not
> > > that frequent), while still allowing more than const_binop (X|0 or X&X for
> > > instance). The transformations are quite conservative with :s and folding
> > > only if everything simplifies, we may want to relax this later. And of
> > > course we are going to miss things like a?b:c + a?c:b -> b+c.
> > >
> > > In terms of number of operations, some transformations turning 2
> > > VEC_COND_EXPR into VEC_COND_EXPR + BIT_IOR_EXPR + BIT_NOT_EXPR might not
> > > look like a gain... I expect the bit_not disappears in most cases, and
> > > VEC_COND_EXPR looks more costly than a simpler BIT_IOR_EXPR.
> > >
> > > I am a bit confused that with avx512 we get types like "vector(4)
> > > <signed-boolean:2>" with :2 and not :1 (is it a hack so true is 1 and not
> > > -1?), but that doesn't matter for this patch.
> > >
> > > Regtest+bootstrap on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
> >
> > + (with
> > + {
> > + tree rhs1, rhs2 = NULL;
> > + rhs1 = fold_binary (op, type, @1, @3);
> > + if (rhs1 && is_gimple_val (rhs1))
> > + rhs2 = fold_binary (op, type, @2, @3);
> >
> > ICK. I guess a more match-and-simplify way would be
> >
> > (with
> > {
> > tree rhs1, rhs2;
> > gimple_match_op op (gimple_match_cond::UNCOND, op,
> > type, @1, @3);
> > if (op.resimplify (NULL, valueize)
> > && gimple_simplified_result_is_gimple_val (op))
> > {
> > rhs1 = op.ops[0];
> > ... other operand ...
> > }
> >
> > now in theory we could invent some new syntax for this, like
> >
> > (simplify
> > (op (vec_cond:s @0 @1 @2) @3)
> > (vec_cond @0 (op:x @1 @3) (op:x @2 @3)))
> >
> > and pick something better instead of :x (:s is taken,
> > would be 'simplified', :c is taken would be 'constexpr', ...).
> >
> > _Maybe_ just
> >
> > (simplify
> > (op (vec_cond:s @0 @1 @2) @3)
> > (vec_cond:x @0 (op @1 @3) (op @2 @3)))
> >
> > which would have the same practical meaning as passing
> > NULL for the seq argument to simplification - do not allow
> > any intermediate stmt to be generated.
>
> Note I specifically do not like those if (it-simplifies) checks
> because we already would code-generate those anyway. For
>
> (simplify
> (plus (vec_cond:s @0 @1 @2) @3)
> (vec_cond @0 (plus @1 @3) (plus @2 @3)))
>
> we get
>
> res_op->set_op (VEC_COND_EXPR, type, 3);
> res_op->ops[0] = captures[1];
> res_op->ops[0] = unshare_expr (res_op->ops[0]);
> {
> tree _o1[2], _r1;
> _o1[0] = captures[2];
> _o1[1] = captures[4];
> gimple_match_op tem_op (res_op->cond.any_else
> (), PLUS_EXPR, TREE_TYPE (_o1[0]), _o1[0], _o1[1]);
> tem_op.resimplify (lseq, valueize);
> _r1 = maybe_push_res_to_seq (&tem_op, lseq); (****)
> if (!_r1) return false;
> res_op->ops[1] = _r1;
> }
> {
> tree _o1[2], _r1;
> _o1[0] = captures[3];
> _o1[1] = captures[4];
> gimple_match_op tem_op (res_op->cond.any_else
> (), PLUS_EXPR, TREE_TYPE (_o1[0]), _o1[0], _o1[1]);
> tem_op.resimplify (lseq, valueize);
> _r1 = maybe_push_res_to_seq (&tem_op, lseq); (***)
> if (!_r1) return false;
> res_op->ops[2] = _r1;
> }
> res_op->resimplify (lseq, valueize);
> return true;
>
> and the only change required would be to pass NULL to maybe_push_res_to_seq
> here instead of lseq at the (***) marked points.
(simplify
(plus (vec_cond:s @0 @1 @2) @3)
(vec_cond:l @0 (plus @1 @3) (plus @2 @3)))
'l' for 'force leaf'. I'll see if I can quickly cme up with a patch.
Richard.
> Richard.
>
> > The other "simple" patterns look good, you can commit
> > them separately if you like.
> >
> > Richard.
> >
> > > 2020-07-30 Marc Glisse <marc.gli...@inria.fr>
> > >
> > > PR tree-optimization/95906
> > > PR target/70314
> > > * match.pd ((c ? a : b) op d, (c ? a : b) op (c ? d : e),
> > > (v ? w : 0) ? a : b, c1 ? c2 ? a : b : b): New transformations.
> > >
> > > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/andnot-2.c: New file.
> > > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr95906.c: Likewise.
> > > * gcc.target/i386/pr70314.c: Likewise.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Marc Glisse
