https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108410
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Btw, for the case we can use the same mask compare type as we use as type for
the IV (so we know we can represent all required values) we can elide the
saturation. So for example
void foo (double * __restrict a, double *b, double *c, int n)
{
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
a[i] = b[i] + c[i];
}
can produce
testl %ecx, %ecx
jle .L5
vmovdqa .LC0(%rip), %ymm3
vpbroadcastd %ecx, %ymm2
xorl %eax, %eax
subl $8, %ecx
vpcmpud $6, %ymm3, %ymm2, %k1
.p2align 4
.p2align 3
.L3:
vmovupd (%rsi,%rax), %zmm1{%k1}
vmovupd (%rdx,%rax), %zmm0{%k1}
movl %ecx, %r8d
vaddpd %zmm1, %zmm0, %zmm2{%k1}{z}
addl $8, %r8d
vmovupd %zmm2, (%rdi,%rax){%k1}
vpbroadcastd %ecx, %ymm2
addq $64, %rax
subl $8, %ecx
vpcmpud $6, %ymm3, %ymm2, %k1
cmpl $8, %r8d
ja .L3
vzeroupper
.L5:
ret
That should work as long as the data size is larger or matches the IV size
which is hopefully the case for all FP testcases. The trick is going to be
to make this visible to costing - I'm not sure we get to decide whether
to use masking or not when we do not want to decide between vector sizes
(the x86 backend picks the first successful one). For SVE it's either
masking (with SVE modes) or not masking (with NEON modes) so it's
decided based on mode rather than as additional knob.
Performance-wise the above is likely still slower than not using masking
plus a masked epilog but it would actually save on code-size for -Os
or -O2. Of course for code-size we might want to stick to SSE/AVX
for the smaller encoding.
Note we have to watch out for all-zero masks for masked stores since
that's very slow (for a reason unknown to me), when we have a stmt
split to multiple vector stmts it's not uncommon (esp. for the epilog)
to have one of them with an all-zero bit mask. For the loop case and
.MASK_STORE we emit branchy code for this but we might want to avoid
the situation by costing (and not using a masked loop/epilog in that
case).
