This patch adds support for MVE Tail-Predicated Low Overhead Loops by using the
doloop funcitonality added to support predicated vectorized hardware loops.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/arm/arm-protos.h (arm_target_bb_ok_for_lob): Change
declaration to pass basic_block.
(arm_at
This patch adds support for MVE Tail-Predicated Low Overhead Loops by using the
doloop funcitonality added to support predicated vectorized hardware loops.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/arm/arm-protos.h (arm_target_bb_ok_for_lob): Change
declaration to pass basic_block.
(arm_at
Squashed the definition and changes to predicated_doloop_end_internal
and dlstp*_insn into this patch to make sure the first patch builds
independently
On 18/12/2023 11:53, Andre Vieira wrote:
Reworked Stam's patch after comments in:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-December/640
Reworked Stam's patch after comments in:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-December/640362.html
The original gcc ChangeLog remains unchanged, but I did split up some tests so
here is the testsuite ChangeLog.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.target/arm/lob.h: Update framework
e (Arm)
Thank you :)
LGTM otherwise (but I don't have the power to approve this ;)).
Kind regards,
Andre
From: Stamatis Markianos-Wright
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2023 11:36 AM
To: Stamatis Markianos-Wright via Gcc-patches; Richard Earnshaw;
Richard Sandifor
Sorry for the slow review.
Stamatis Markianos-Wright writes:
> [...]
> diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/mve.md b/gcc/config/arm/mve.md
> index
> 44a04b86cb5806fcf50917826512fd203d42106c..c083f965fa9a40781bc86beb6e63654afd14eac4
> 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/arm/mve.md
> +++ b/gcc/config/arm/mve.md
> @
egards,
Andre
From: Stamatis Markianos-Wright
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2023 11:36 AM
To: Stamatis Markianos-Wright via Gcc-patches; Richard Earnshaw;
Richard Sandiford; Kyrylo Tkachov
Subject: [PING][PATCH 2/2] arm: Add support for MVE Tail-Predicat
__
From: Stamatis Markianos-Wright
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2023 11:36 AM
To: Stamatis Markianos-Wright via Gcc-patches; Richard Earnshaw; Richard
Sandiford; Kyrylo Tkachov
Subject: [PING][PATCH 2/2] arm: Add support for MVE Tail-Predicated Low
Overhead Loops
Pinging back to the top of review
Pinging back to the top of reviewers' inboxes due to worry about Stage 1
End in a few days :)
See the last email for the latest version of the 2/2 patch. The 1/2
patch is A-Ok from Kyrill's earlier target-backend review.
On 10/11/2023 12:41, Stamatis Markianos-Wright wrote:
On 06/11/2023
On 06/11/2023 11:24, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Stamatis Markianos-Wright writes:
One of the main reasons for reading the arm bits was to try to answer
the question: if we switch to a downcounting loop with a GE condition,
how do we make sure that the start value is not a large unsigned
number
Stamatis Markianos-Wright writes:
>> One of the main reasons for reading the arm bits was to try to answer
>> the question: if we switch to a downcounting loop with a GE condition,
>> how do we make sure that the start value is not a large unsigned
>> number that is interpreted as negative by GE?
Sorry for the slow review. I had a look at the arm bits too, to get
some context for the target-independent bits.
Stamatis Markianos-Wright via Gcc-patches writes:
> [...]
> diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm-protos.h b/gcc/config/arm/arm-protos.h
> index 77e76336e94..74186930f0b 100644
> --- a/gcc
Ping for Jeff or another global maintainer to review the target agnostic
bits of this, that's:
loop-doloop.cc
df-core.{c,h}
I do have a nitpick myself that I missed last time around:
/* We expect the condition to be of the form (reg != 0) */
cond = XEXP (SET_SRC (cmp), 0);
-
Hi all,
On 28/09/2023 13:51, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
Hi,
On 14/09/2023 13:10, Kyrylo Tkachov via Gcc-patches wrote:
Hi Stam,
The arm parts look sensible but we'd need review for the df-core.h
and df-core.cc changes.
Maybe Jeff can help or can recommend someone to take a look?
Just
Hi,
On 14/09/2023 13:10, Kyrylo Tkachov via Gcc-patches wrote:
Hi Stam,
The arm parts look sensible but we'd need review for the df-core.h and
df-core.cc changes.
Maybe Jeff can help or can recommend someone to take a look?
Thanks,
Kyrill
FWIW the changes LGTM, if we don't want these in
Hi Stam,
> -Original Message-
> From: Stam Markianos-Wright
> Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2023 6:19 PM
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: Kyrylo Tkachov ; Richard Earnshaw
>
> Subject: [PING][PATCH 2/2] arm: Add support for MVE Tail-Predicated Low
> Ov
On 23/06/2023 11:23, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
+ if (insn != arm_mve_get_loop_vctp (body))
+ {
probably a good idea to invert the condition here and return false,
helps reducing the indenting in this function.
Done, thanks
+ /* Starting from the current insn, scan backwards th
Thank you Andre for reviewing! I'll attach the updated version of the
patch to the third review email (your final one thus far ;)
On 22/06/2023 16:54, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
Some comments below, all quite minor. I'll continue to review
tomorrow, I need a fresher brain for
arm_mve_check_df
+ /* In order to find out if the loop is of type A or B above look for the
+ loop counter: it will either be incrementing by one per iteration or
+ it will be decrementing by num_of_lanes. We can find the loop counter
+ in the condition at the end of the loop. */
+ rtx_insn *loop_c
+ if (insn != arm_mve_get_loop_vctp (body))
+{
probably a good idea to invert the condition here and return false,
helps reducing the indenting in this function.
+ /* Starting from the current insn, scan backwards through the insn
+ chain until BB_HEAD: "for each insn in t
Some comments below, all quite minor. I'll continue to review tomorrow,
I need a fresher brain for arm_mve_check_df_chain_back_for_implic_predic
;)
+static int
+arm_mve_get_vctp_lanes (rtx x)
+{
+ if (GET_CODE (x) == SET && GET_CODE (XEXP (x, 1)) == UNSPEC
+ && (XINT (XEXP (x, 1), 1) ==
Hi all,
This is the 2/2 patch that contains the functional changes needed
for MVE Tail Predicated Low Overhead Loops. See my previous email
for a general introduction of MVE LOLs.
This support is added through the already existing loop-doloop
mechanisms that are used for
On 11/15/22 15:51, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
On 11/11/2022 17:40, Stam Markianos-Wright via Gcc-patches wrote:
Hi all,
This is the 2/2 patch that contains the functional changes needed
for MVE Tail Predicated Low Overhead Loops. See my previous email
for a general introduction of MVE LOLs.
On 11/11/2022 17:40, Stam Markianos-Wright via Gcc-patches wrote:
Hi all,
This is the 2/2 patch that contains the functional changes needed
for MVE Tail Predicated Low Overhead Loops. See my previous email
for a general introduction of MVE LOLs.
This support is added through the already exis
Hi all,
This is the 2/2 patch that contains the functional changes needed
for MVE Tail Predicated Low Overhead Loops. See my previous email
for a general introduction of MVE LOLs.
This support is added through the already existing loop-doloop
mechanisms that are used for non-MVE dls/le looping.
25 matches
Mail list logo
