Hi!
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/r11-6707-g7432f255b70811dafaf325d94036ac580891de69
https://gcc.gnu.org/r11-6708-gbfab355012ca0f5219da8beb04f2fdaf757d34b7
changes moved the vashl/vashr/vlshr expanders from neon.md to vec-common.md
and changed their condition from TARGET_NEON to ARM_HAVE_<MODE>_ARITH,
so that they apply also for TARGET_HAVE_MVE. But, the ARM_HAVE_<MODE>_ARITH
macros are sometimes true also for TARGET_REALLY_IWMMXT, which at least
from quick skimming of former iwmmxt*.md doesn't have such instructions,
so it seems incorrect to enable them for iwmmxt. Furthermore, even if it
had them, iwmmxt doesn't support any way to broadcast values in those
modes (vec_duplicate and vec_init optabs) and the middle end relies on
if the vector x vector shift/rotate patterns are supported it can emit
vector x scalar shift/rotate by broadcasting the shift amount to a vector.
As the TARGET_NEON vs. TARGET_REALLY_IWMMXT vs. TARGET_HAVE_MVE never seem
to be enabled together, I think we can just write it the following way.
Bootstrapped/regtested on armv7hl-linux, ok for trunk?
Note, seems iwmmxt actually does support vector x scalar shifts, but doesn't
really enable the optabs that would tell the middle-end code that it does
(and neon and mve don't seem to support those). I'll defer that to anybody
that cares about iwmmxt (if any).
2021-01-29 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
PR target/98849
* config/arm/vec-common.md (mve_vshlq_<supf><mode>,
vashl<mode>3, vashr<mode>3, vlshr<mode>3): Add
&& !TARGET_REALLY_IWMMXT to conditions.
* gcc.c-torture/compile/pr98849.c: New test.
--- gcc/config/arm/vec-common.md.jj 2021-01-25 10:02:28.375126904 +0100
+++ gcc/config/arm/vec-common.md 2021-01-28 16:49:30.756916669 +0100
@@ -301,7 +301,7 @@ (define_insn "mve_vshlq_<supf><mode>"
(unspec:VDQIW [(match_operand:VDQIW 1 "s_register_operand" "w,w")
(match_operand:VDQIW 2 "imm_lshift_or_reg_neon" "w,Dm")]
VSHLQ))]
- "ARM_HAVE_<MODE>_ARITH"
+ "ARM_HAVE_<MODE>_ARITH && !TARGET_REALLY_IWMMXT"
"@
vshl.<supf>%#<V_sz_elem>\t%<V_reg>0, %<V_reg>1, %<V_reg>2
* return neon_output_shift_immediate (\"vshl\", 'i', &operands[2],
<MODE>mode, VALID_NEON_QREG_MODE (<MODE>mode), true);"
@@ -312,7 +312,7 @@ (define_expand "vashl<mode>3"
[(set (match_operand:VDQIW 0 "s_register_operand" "")
(ashift:VDQIW (match_operand:VDQIW 1 "s_register_operand" "")
(match_operand:VDQIW 2 "imm_lshift_or_reg_neon" "")))]
- "ARM_HAVE_<MODE>_ARITH"
+ "ARM_HAVE_<MODE>_ARITH && !TARGET_REALLY_IWMMXT"
{
emit_insn (gen_mve_vshlq_u<mode> (operands[0], operands[1], operands[2]));
DONE;
@@ -325,7 +325,7 @@ (define_expand "vashr<mode>3"
[(set (match_operand:VDQIW 0 "s_register_operand")
(ashiftrt:VDQIW (match_operand:VDQIW 1 "s_register_operand")
(match_operand:VDQIW 2 "imm_rshift_or_reg_neon")))]
- "ARM_HAVE_<MODE>_ARITH"
+ "ARM_HAVE_<MODE>_ARITH && !TARGET_REALLY_IWMMXT"
{
if (s_register_operand (operands[2], <MODE>mode))
{
@@ -343,7 +343,7 @@ (define_expand "vlshr<mode>3"
[(set (match_operand:VDQIW 0 "s_register_operand")
(lshiftrt:VDQIW (match_operand:VDQIW 1 "s_register_operand")
(match_operand:VDQIW 2 "imm_rshift_or_reg_neon")))]
- "ARM_HAVE_<MODE>_ARITH"
+ "ARM_HAVE_<MODE>_ARITH && !TARGET_REALLY_IWMMXT"
{
if (s_register_operand (operands[2], <MODE>mode))
{
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr98849.c.jj 2021-01-28
16:45:01.168964754 +0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr98849.c 2021-01-28
16:44:22.702399683 +0100
@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+/* PR target/98849 */
+
+unsigned int a[1024], b[1024];
+int c[1024], d[1024];
+
+void
+f1 (void)
+{
+ for (int i = 0; i < 1024; i++)
+ a[i] = b[i] << 3;
+}
+
+void
+f2 (int x)
+{
+ for (int i = 0; i < 1024; i++)
+ a[i] = b[i] << x;
+}
+
+void
+f3 (void)
+{
+ for (int i = 0; i < 1024; i++)
+ c[i] = d[i] << 3;
+}
+
+void
+f4 (int x)
+{
+ for (int i = 0; i < 1024; i++)
+ c[i] = d[i] << x;
+}
+
+void
+f5 (void)
+{
+ for (int i = 0; i < 1024; i++)
+ a[i] = b[i] >> 3;
+}
+
+void
+f6 (int x)
+{
+ for (int i = 0; i < 1024; i++)
+ a[i] = b[i] >> x;
+}
+
+void
+f7 (void)
+{
+ for (int i = 0; i < 1024; i++)
+ c[i] = d[i] >> 3;
+}
+
+void
+f8 (int x)
+{
+ for (int i = 0; i < 1024; i++)
+ c[i] = d[i] >> x;
+}
Jakub
