Hi Carl,
on 2023/4/14 01:58, Carl Love via Gcc-patches wrote:
> GCC maintainers:
>
> The following fix updates the expected instruction counts for the
> test int_128bit-runnable.c test. The counts changed as a result of a
> commit to support 128-bit integer divide and modulus. The change
> resulted in two of the tests using vdivsq instructions rather than the
> vextsd2q instruction. This increased the counts for the vdivsq from 1
> to three and the counts for the vextsd2q instruction from 6 to 4.
>
> The patch has been tested on a Power10 system with no new regression
> failures.
>
> Please let me know if this patch is acceptable for mainline. Thanks.
OK for trunk, thanks for fixing!
BR,
Kewen
>
> Carl
>
>
> ----------------------------------------
> rs6000: Fix test int_128bit-runnable.c instruction counts
>
> The test reports two failures on Power 10LE:
>
> FAIL: .../int_128bit-runnable.c scan-assembler-times \\\\mvdivsq\\\\M 1
> FAIL: .../int_128bit-runnable.c scan-assembler-times \\\\mvextsd2q\\\\M 6
>
> The current counts are :
>
> vdivsq 3
> vextsd2q 4
>
> The counts changed with commit:
>
> commit 852b11da11a181df517c0348df044354ff0656d6
> Author: Michael Meissner <meiss...@linux.ibm.com>
> Date: Wed Jul 7 21:55:38 2021 -0400
>
> Generate 128-bit int divide/modulus on power10.
>
> This patch adds support for the VDIVSQ, VDIVUQ, VMODSQ, and VMODUQ
> instructions to do 128-bit arithmetic.
>
> 2021-07-07 Michael Meissner <meiss...@linux.ibm.com>
>
> The code generation changed significantly. There are two places where
> the vextsd2q is "replaced" by a vdivsq instruction thus increasing the
> vdivsq count from 1 to 3. The first case is:
>
> expected_result = vec_arg1[0]/4;
> 10000af8: 60 01 df e8 ld r6,352(r31)
> 10000afc: 68 01 ff e8 ld r7,360(r31)
> 10000b00: 76 fe e9 7c sradi r9,r7,63
> 10000b04: 67 4b 00 7c mtvsrdd vs32,0,r9
> 10000b08: 02 06 1b 10 vextsd2q v0,v0 <----
> 10000b0c: 03 00 40 39 li r10,3
> 10000b10: 00 00 60 39 li r11,0
> 10000b14: 67 00 09 7c mfvrd r9,v0
> 10000b18: 67 02 08 7c mfvsrld r8,vs32
> 10000b1c: 38 50 08 7d and r8,r8,r10
> 10000b20: 38 58 29 7d and r9,r9,r11
> 10000b24: 78 4b 2b 7d mr r11,r9
> 10000b28: 78 43 0a 7d mr r10,r8
> 10000b2c: 14 30 4a 7f addc r26,r10,r6
> 10000b30: 14 39 6b 7f adde r27,r11,r7
> 10000b34: 46 f0 69 7b sldi r9,r27,62
> 10000b38: 82 f0 58 7b srdi r24,r26,2
> 10000b3c: 78 c3 38 7d or r24,r9,r24
> 10000b40: 74 16 79 7f sradi r25,r27,2
> 10000b44: 30 00 1f fb std r24,48(r31)
> 10000b48: 38 00 3f fb std r25,56(r31)
>
> To:
>
> expected_result = vec_arg1[0]/4;
> 10000af8: 69 01 1f f4 lxv vs32,352(r31)
> 10000afc: 04 00 20 39 li r9,4
> 10000b00: 00 00 40 39 li r10,0
> 10000b04: 67 4b 2a 7c mtvsrdd vs33,r10,r9
> 10000b08: 0b 09 00 10 vdivsq v0,v0,v1 <----
> 10000b0c: 3d 00 1f f4 stxv vs32,48(r31)
>
> The second case were a vexts2q instruction is replaced with vdivsq:
>
> From:
>
> expected_result = arg1/16;
> 10000c24: 40 00 df e8 ld r6,64(r31)
> 10000c28: 48 00 ff e8 ld r7,72(r31)
> 10000c2c: 76 fe e9 7c sradi r9,r7,63
> 10000c30: 67 4b 00 7c mtvsrdd vs32,0,r9
> 10000c34: 02 06 1b 10 vextsd2q v0,v0 <---
> 10000c38: 0f 00 40 39 li r10,15
> 10000c3c: 00 00 60 39 li r11,0
> 10000c40: 67 00 09 7c mfvrd r9,v0
> 10000c44: 67 02 08 7c mfvsrld r8,vs32
> 10000c48: 38 50 08 7d and r8,r8,r10
> 10000c4c: 38 58 29 7d and r9,r9,r11
> 10000c50: 78 4b 2b 7d mr r11,r9
> 10000c54: 78 43 0a 7d mr r10,r8
> 10000c58: 14 30 ca 7e addc r22,r10,r6
> 10000c5c: 14 39 eb 7e adde r23,r11,r7
> 10000c60: c6 e0 e9 7a sldi r9,r23,60
> 10000c64: 02 e1 d4 7a srdi r20,r22,4
> 10000c68: 78 a3 34 7d or r20,r9,r20
> 10000c6c: 74 26 f5 7e sradi r21,r23,4
> 10000c70: 30 00 9f fa std r20,48(r31)
> 10000c74: 38 00 bf fa std r21,56(r31)
>
> To:
>
> expected_result = arg1/16;
> 10000be8: 49 00 1f f4 lxv vs32,64(r31)
> 10000bec: 10 00 20 39 li r9,16
> 10000bf0: 00 00 40 39 li r10,0
> 10000bf4: 67 4b 2a 7c mtvsrdd vs33,r10,r9
> 10000bf8: 0b 09 00 10 vdivsq v0,v0,v1 <---
> 10000bfc: 3d 00 1f f4 stxv vs32,48(r31)
>
> The patch has been tested on Power10LE with no regressions.
>
> gcc/testsuite/
> * gcc.target/powerpc/int_128bit-runnable.c: Update expected
> instruction counts.
> ---
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/int_128bit-runnable.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/int_128bit-runnable.c
> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/int_128bit-runnable.c
> index 1afb00262a1..b2e2da1e013 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/int_128bit-runnable.c
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/int_128bit-runnable.c
> @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
>
> /* Check that the expected 128-bit instructions are generated if the
> processor
> supports the 128-bit integer instructions. */
> -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {\mvextsd2q\M} 6 } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {\mvextsd2q\M} 4 } } */
> /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {\mvslq\M} 2 } } */
> /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {\mvsrq\M} 2 } } */
> /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {\mvsraq\M} 2 } } */
> @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@
> /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {\mvmulesd\M} 1 } } */
> /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {\mvmulosd\M} 1 } } */
> /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {\mvmulld\M} 1 } } */
> -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {\mvdivsq\M} 1 } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {\mvdivsq\M} 3 } } */
> /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {\mvdivuq\M} 1 } } */
> /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {\mvdivesq\M} 1 } } */
> /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {\mvdiveuq\M} 1 } } */
