Richard Biener <[email protected]> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 8:28 AM Hongtao Liu <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 7:56 PM Richard Biener
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 12:18 PM Hongtao Liu <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 8:25 PM Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
>> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 8:53 AM liuhongt <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > When gimple simplifcation try to combine op and vec_cond_expr to
>> > > > > cond_op,
>> > > > > it doesn't check if mask type matches. It causes an ICE when expand
>> > > > > cond_op
>> > > > > with mismatched mode.
>> > > > > This patch add a function named
>> > > > > cond_vectorized_internal_fn_supported_p
>> > > > > to additionally check mask type than
>> > > > > vectorized_internal_fn_supported_p.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-linux-gnu{-m32,}.
>> > > > > Ok for trunk?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > gcc/ChangeLog:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > PR middle-end/102080
>> > > > > * internal-fn.c (cond_vectorized_internal_fn_supported_p):
>> > > > > New functions.
>> > > > > * internal-fn.h (cond_vectorized_internal_fn_supported_p):
>> > > > > New declaration.
>> > > > > * match.pd: Check the type of mask while generating cond_op
>> > > > > in
>> > > > > gimple simplication.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > PR middle-end/102080
>> > > > > * gcc.target/i386/pr102080.c: New test.
>> > > > > ---
>> > > > > gcc/internal-fn.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>> > > > > gcc/internal-fn.h | 1 +
>> > > > > gcc/match.pd | 24
>> > > > > ++++++++++++++++--------
>> > > > > gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr102080.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>> > > > > 4 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>> > > > > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr102080.c
>> > > > >
>> > > > > diff --git a/gcc/internal-fn.c b/gcc/internal-fn.c
>> > > > > index 1360a00f0b9..8b2b65db1a7 100644
>> > > > > --- a/gcc/internal-fn.c
>> > > > > +++ b/gcc/internal-fn.c
>> > > > > @@ -4102,6 +4102,28 @@ expand_internal_call (gcall *stmt)
>> > > > > expand_internal_call (gimple_call_internal_fn (stmt), stmt);
>> > > > > }
>> > > > >
>> > > > > +/* Check cond_op for vector modes since
>> > > > > vectorized_internal_fn_supported_p
>> > > > > + doesn't check if mask type matches. */
>> > > > > +bool
>> > > > > +cond_vectorized_internal_fn_supported_p (internal_fn ifn, tree type,
>> > > > > + tree mask_type)
>> > > > > +{
>> > > > > + if (!vectorized_internal_fn_supported_p (ifn, type))
>> > > > > + return false;
>> > > > > +
>> > > > > + machine_mode mask_mode;
>> > > > > + machine_mode vmode = TYPE_MODE (type);
>> > > > > + int size1, size2;
>> > > > > + if (VECTOR_MODE_P (vmode)
>> > > > > + && targetm.vectorize.get_mask_mode (vmode).exists(&mask_mode)
>> > > > > + && GET_MODE_SIZE (mask_mode).is_constant (&size1)
>> > > > > + && GET_MODE_SIZE (TYPE_MODE (mask_type)).is_constant (&size2)
>> > > > > + && size1 != size2)
>> > > >
>> > > > Why do we check for equal size rather than just mode equality which
>> > > I originally thought TYPE_MODE of vector(8) <signed-boolean:1> was
>> > > not QImode, Changed the patch to check mode equality.
>> > > Update patch.
>> >
>> > Looking at all this it seems the match.pd patterns should have not
>> > used vectorized_internal_fn_supported_p but direct_internal_fn_supported_p
>> > which is equivalent here because we're always working with vector modes?
Yeah, looks like it.
>> > And then shouldn't we look at the actual optab whether the mask mode
>> > matches
>> > the expectation rather than going around via the target hook which may not
>> > have
>> > enough context to decide which mask mode to use?
>> How about this?
>>
>> +/* Return true if target supports cond_op with data TYPE and
>> + mask MASK_TYPE. */
>> +bool
>> +cond_internal_fn_supported_p (internal_fn ifn, tree type,
>> + tree mask_type)
>> +{
>> + tree_pair types = tree_pair (type, type);
>> + optab tmp = direct_internal_fn_optab (ifn, types);
>> + machine_mode vmode = TYPE_MODE (type);
>> + insn_code icode = direct_optab_handler (tmp, vmode);
>> + if (icode == CODE_FOR_nothing)
>> + return false;
>> +
>> + machine_mode mask_mode = TYPE_MODE (mask_type);
>> + /* Can't create rtx and use insn_operand_matches here. */
>> + return insn_data[icode].operand[0].mode == vmode
>> + && insn_data[icode].operand[1].mode == mask_mode;
>> +}
>> +
>
> Yeah, sth like that, though the operand[0].mode test should be
> redudnant. I think we should assert or have a whiltelist
> for the internal function we support to be queried this way.
> Not sure if we can directly access the 'cond_binary/cond_ternary'
> classification used in internal-fn.def, that would be best.
>
> Richard, what are your thoughts about all this?
IMO using get_mask_mode was right. The optab documentation says:
Operands 0, 2, 3 and 4 all have mode @var{m}. Operand 1 is a scalar
integer if @var{m} is scalar, otherwise it has the mode returned by
@code{TARGET_VECTORIZE_GET_MASK_MODE}.
Allowing targets to use optabs to enforce different mask modes for
different operations would open up a mess of combinations.
In other words, I think cond_vectorized_internal_fn_supported_p
is really testing two things:
(1) is the mask type/vector type combination well-formed?
(2) is the internal function supported for the vector type?
where (1) is a gimple question and (2) is a target question.
I guess there's an argument that (1) should be part of the match.pd
condition instead, alongside the element_precision check. That would
add to the cut-&-paste though. :-(
Alternatively, I guess we would add:
bool is_truth_type_for (tree type, tree truth_type);
to return true if truth_type is equal to truth_type_for (type)
(but without having to call truth_type_for). We could then use:
is_truth_type_for (op_type, TREE_TYPE (@0))
instead of:
element_precision (type) == element_precision (op_type)
since it should be a strictly stronger condition.
Thanks,
Richard
