Hi!
On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 02:56:11PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_builtin_md_vectorized_function): Add
> support for some built-in functions vectorized on Power10.
Say which, not "some" please?
> + machine_mode in_vmode = TYPE_MODE (type_in);
> + machine_mode out_vmode = TYPE_MODE (type_out);
> +
> + /* Power10 supported vectorized built-in functions. */
> + if (TARGET_POWER10
> + && in_vmode == out_vmode
> + && VECTOR_UNIT_ALTIVEC_OR_VSX_P (in_vmode))
> + {
> + machine_mode exp_mode = DImode;
> + machine_mode exp_vmode = V2DImode;
> + enum rs6000_builtins vname = RS6000_BUILTIN_COUNT;
"name"? This should be "bif" or similar?
> + switch (fn)
> + {
> + case MISC_BUILTIN_DIVWE:
> + case MISC_BUILTIN_DIVWEU:
> + exp_mode = SImode;
> + exp_vmode = V4SImode;
> + if (fn == MISC_BUILTIN_DIVWE)
> + vname = P10V_BUILTIN_DIVES_V4SI;
> + else
> + vname = P10V_BUILTIN_DIVEU_V4SI;
> + break;
> + case MISC_BUILTIN_DIVDE:
> + case MISC_BUILTIN_DIVDEU:
> + if (fn == MISC_BUILTIN_DIVDE)
> + vname = P10V_BUILTIN_DIVES_V2DI;
> + else
> + vname = P10V_BUILTIN_DIVEU_V2DI;
> + break;
All of the above should not be builtin functions really, they are all
simple arithmetic :-( They should not be UNSPECs either, on RTL level.
They can and should be optimised in real code as well. Oh well.
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/dive-vectorize-2.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
> +/* { dg-require-effective-target lp64 } */
Please add a comment what this is needed for? "We scan for dive*d" is
enough, but without anything, it takes time to figure this out.
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/dive-vectorize-run-2.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
> +/* { dg-do run } */
> +/* { dg-require-effective-target lp64 } */
Same here. I suppose this uses builtins that do not exist on 32-bit?
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/p10-bifs-vectorize-run-1.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
> +/* { dg-do run } */
> +/* { dg-require-effective-target lp64 } */
And another.
> +#define CHECK(name)
> \
> + __attribute__ ((optimize (1))) void check_##name ()
> \
What is the attribute for, btw? It seems fragile, but perhaps I do not
understand the intention.
Okay for trunk with whose lp64 things improved. Thanks!
Segher
