Register allocation (RA) doesn't affect the assembler checks since I relax the
registers in assmebler checks,
all assmebler checks have their own goal. For example:
The code like this:
+void foo2 (void * restrict in, void * restrict out, int n)
+{
+ for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
+ {
+ vuint16mf4_t v = *(vuint16mf4_t*)(in + i);
+ *(vuint16mf4_t*)(out + i) = v;
+ }
+}
Assembler check:
scan-assembler-times
{vsetvli\s+(?:ra|[sgtf]p|t[0-6]|s[0-9]|s10|s11|a[0-7]),\s*zero,\s*e16,\s*mf4,\s*t[au],\s*m[au]\s+\.L[0-9]\:\s+vle16\.v\s+(?:v[0-9]|v[1-2][0-9]|v3[0-1]),0\s*\((?:ra|[sgtf]p|t[0-6]|s[0-9]|s10|s11|a[0-7])\I
don't care about which vector register is using since I relax register in
assembler : (?:v[0-9]|v[1-2][0-9]|v3[0-1]), this means any vector register
v0-v31But also I relax scalar register :
(?:ra|[sgtf]p|t[0-6]|s[0-9]|s10|s11|a[0-7]), so could be any x0 - x31 of
them.The only strict check is that make sure the vsetvl is hoist outside the
loop meaning the location of vsetvl is outside of the Lable
L[0-9]:vsetvli\s+(?:ra|[sgtf]p|t[0-6]|s[0-9]|s10|s11|a[0-7]),\s*zero,\s*e16,\s*mf4,\s*t[au],\s*m[au]\s+\.L[0-9]You
can see the last assembler is \s+\.L[0-9] to make sure VSETVL PASS
successfully do the optimization that hoist the vsetvl instruction outside the
loopI try to use check-function-body but it fails since it can not recognize
the Lable which is most important for such cases.
[email protected]
From: Jeff Law
Date: 2022-12-17 04:07
To: juzhe.zhong; gcc-patches
CC: kito.cheng; palmer
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Add testcases for VSETVL PASS
On 12/14/22 01:09, [email protected] wrote:
> From: Ju-Zhe Zhong <[email protected]>
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/rvv.exp: Adjust to enable tests for VSETVL
> PASS.
> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/vsetvl/dump-1.c: New test.
> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/vsetvl/vlmax_single_block-1.c: New test.
> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/vsetvl/vlmax_single_block-10.c: New test.
> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/vsetvl/vlmax_single_block-11.c: New test.
> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/vsetvl/vlmax_single_block-12.c: New test.
> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/vsetvl/vlmax_single_block-13.c: New test.
> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/vsetvl/vlmax_single_block-14.c: New test.
> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/vsetvl/vlmax_single_block-15.c: New test.
> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/vsetvl/vlmax_single_block-16.c: New test.
> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/vsetvl/vlmax_single_block-17.c: New test.
> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/vsetvl/vlmax_single_block-18.c: New test.
> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/vsetvl/vlmax_single_block-19.c: New test.
> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/vsetvl/vlmax_single_block-2.c: New test.
> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/vsetvl/vlmax_single_block-3.c: New test.
> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/vsetvl/vlmax_single_block-4.c: New test.
> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/vsetvl/vlmax_single_block-5.c: New test.
> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/vsetvl/vlmax_single_block-6.c: New test.
> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/vsetvl/vlmax_single_block-7.c: New test.
> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/vsetvl/vlmax_single_block-8.c: New test.
> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/vsetvl/vlmax_single_block-9.c: New test.
> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/vsetvl/vlmax_single_vtype-1.c: New test.
> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/vsetvl/vlmax_single_vtype-2.c: New test.
> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/vsetvl/vlmax_single_vtype-3.c: New test.
> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/vsetvl/vlmax_single_vtype-4.c: New test.
> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/vsetvl/vlmax_single_vtype-5.c: New test.
> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/vsetvl/vlmax_single_vtype-6.c: New test.
> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/vsetvl/vlmax_single_vtype-7.c: New test.
> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/vsetvl/vlmax_single_vtype-8.c: New test.
So it looks like the assembler strings you're searching for are highly
specific (across all 5 testsuite patches). How sensitive do we expect
these tests to be to things like register allocation giving us different
registers and such? I'd hate to be in a position where we're constantly
needing to update these tests because the output is changing in
unimportant ways.
Jeff
