2015-10-22 18:52 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com>:
> On 10/22/2015 04:35 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>>
>> 2015-10-21 20:25 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com>:
>>>
>>> On 10/08/2015 08:52 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> This series introduces autogeneration of vector comparison and its
>>>> support
>>>> on i386 target. It lets comparison statements to be vectorized into
>>>> vector
>>>> comparison instead of VEC_COND_EXPR. This allows to avoid some
>>>> restrictions
>>>> implied by boolean patterns. This series applies on top of bolean
>>>> vectors
>>>> series [1].
>>>>
>>>> This patch introduces optabs for vector comparison.
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg00215.html
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Ilya
>>>> --
>>>> gcc/
>>>>
>>>> 2015-10-08 Ilya Enkovich <enkovich....@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> * expr.c (do_store_flag): Use expand_vec_cmp_expr for mask
>>>> results.
>>>> * optabs-query.h (get_vec_cmp_icode): New.
>>>> * optabs-tree.c (expand_vec_cmp_expr_p): New.
>>>> * optabs-tree.h (expand_vec_cmp_expr_p): New.
>>>> * optabs.c (vector_compare_rtx): Add OPNO arg.
>>>> (expand_vec_cond_expr): Adjust to vector_compare_rtx change.
>>>> (expand_vec_cmp_expr): New.
>>>> * optabs.def (vec_cmp_optab): New.
>>>> (vec_cmpu_optab): New.
>>>> * optabs.h (expand_vec_cmp_expr): New.
>>>> * tree-vect-generic.c (expand_vector_comparison): Add vector
>>>> comparison optabs check.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/gcc/optabs-tree.c b/gcc/optabs-tree.c
>>>> index 3b03338..aa863cf 100644
>>>> --- a/gcc/optabs-tree.c
>>>> +++ b/gcc/optabs-tree.c
>>>> @@ -320,6 +320,19 @@ supportable_convert_operation (enum tree_code code,
>>>> return false;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +/* Return TRUE if appropriate vector insn is available
>>>> + for vector comparison expr with vector type VALUE_TYPE
>>>> + and resulting mask with MASK_TYPE. */
>>>> +
>>>> +bool
>>>> +expand_vec_cmp_expr_p (tree value_type, tree mask_type)
>>>> +{
>>>> + enum insn_code icode = get_vec_cmp_icode (TYPE_MODE (value_type),
>>>> + TYPE_MODE (mask_type),
>>>> + TYPE_UNSIGNED (value_type));
>>>> + return (icode != CODE_FOR_nothing);
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>
>>>
>>> Nothing inherently wrong with the code, but it seems like it's in the
>>> wrong
>>> place. Why optabs-tree rather than optabs-query?
>>
>>
>> Because it uses tree type for arguments. There is no single tree usage
>> in optabs-query.c. I think expand_vec_cond_expr_p is in optabs-tree
>> for the same reason.
>
> Note that expand_vec_cond_expr_p doesn't rely on enum insn code. Well, it
> relies on enum insn code being an integer and CODE_FOR_nothing always having
> the value zero, which is probably worse.
Actually it also uses CODE_FOR_nothing in comparison:
|| get_vcond_icode (TYPE_MODE (value_type), TYPE_MODE (cmp_op_type),
TYPE_UNSIGNED (cmp_op_type)) == CODE_FOR_nothing)
There are also two other instances of CODE_FOR_nothing in
optabs-tree.c. Do you want to get rid of "#include insn-codes.h" in
optabs-tree.c? Will it be really better if we replace it with
"#include optabs-query.h"?
Thanks,
Ilya
>
> We should clean both of these up so that:
>
> 1. We don't need enum insn_code in optabs-tree
> 2. We don't implicitly rely on CODE_FOR_nothing == 0
>
> It may be as simple as a adding a predicate function to optabs-query that
> returns true/false if there's a suitable icode, then using that predicate in
> optabs-tree.
>
> jeff
>
>
