On 11/15/22 07:54, Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches wrote:
Tamar Christina <tamar.christ...@arm.com> writes:
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandif...@arm.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 11:59 AM
To: Tamar Christina via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Cc: Tamar Christina <tamar.christ...@arm.com>; nd <n...@arm.com>;
rguent...@suse.de; j...@ventanamicro.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH]middle-end: replace GET_MODE_WIDER_MODE with
GET_MODE_NEXT_MODE
Tamar Christina via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
Hi All,
After the fix to the addsub patch yesterday for bootstrap I had only
regtested on x86.
While looking today it seemed the new tests were failing, this was
caused by a change in the behavior of the GET_MODE_WIDER_MODE
macro on trunk.
This patch fixes that issue. Sorry for the mess, have rebased all branches
now.
Bootstrapped Regtested on aarch64-none-linux-gnu and no issues.
Ok for master?
Thanks,
Tamar
gcc/ChangeLog:
* match.pd: Replace GET_MODE_WIDER_MODE with
GET_MODE_NEXT_MODE.
--- inline copy of patch --
diff --git a/gcc/match.pd b/gcc/match.pd index
1b0ab7cf60fa4772fbe8304c622b0b8fab1bdefa..28191a992039c6f3a1dab5f7c0
e3
5dd58dc47092 100644
--- a/gcc/match.pd
+++ b/gcc/match.pd
@@ -7997,7 +7997,7 @@ and,
machine_mode wide_mode;
}
(if (sel.series_p (0, 2, 0, 2)
- && GET_MODE_WIDER_MODE (vec_mode).exists (&wide_mode)
+ && GET_MODE_NEXT_MODE (vec_mode).exists (&wide_mode)
&& VECTOR_MODE_P (wide_mode)
&& (GET_MODE_UNIT_BITSIZE (vec_mode) * 2
== GET_MODE_UNIT_BITSIZE (wide_mode)))
Does anything guarantee that the next mode will be the right one?
It think it would be safer to replace the last three && conditions with:
&& GET_MODE_2XWIDER_MODE (GET_MODE_INNER (vec_mode)).exists
(&wide_elt_mode)
&& multiple_p (GET_MODE_NUNITS (vec_mode), 2, &wide_nunits)
&& related_vector_mode (vec_mode, wide_elt_mode,
wide_nunits).exists (&wide_mode)
I see, respun patch accordingly.
LGTM, but I'm nervous when it comes to match.pd stuff so I'd prefer
Richi or Jeff to have the final say.
It's just a matter of finding that 2X wider mode to make the
transformation possible. So I don't see any concerns here.
jeff
