Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 3:24 PM Andre Vieira (lists) via Gcc-patches
> <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>>
>> Rebased all three patches and made some small changes to the second one:
>> - removed sub and abd optabs from commutative_optab_p, I suspect this
>> was a copy paste mistake,
>> - removed what I believe to be a superfluous switch case in vectorizable
>> conversion, the one that was here:
>> + if (code.is_fn_code ())
>> + {
>> + internal_fn ifn = as_internal_fn (code.as_fn_code ());
>> + int ecf_flags = internal_fn_flags (ifn);
>> + gcc_assert (ecf_flags & ECF_MULTI);
>> +
>> + switch (code.as_fn_code ())
>> + {
>> + case CFN_VEC_WIDEN_PLUS:
>> + break;
>> + case CFN_VEC_WIDEN_MINUS:
>> + break;
>> + case CFN_LAST:
>> + default:
>> + return false;
>> + }
>> +
>> + internal_fn lo, hi;
>> + lookup_multi_internal_fn (ifn, &lo, &hi);
>> + *code1 = as_combined_fn (lo);
>> + *code2 = as_combined_fn (hi);
>> + optab1 = lookup_multi_ifn_optab (lo, !TYPE_UNSIGNED (vectype));
>> + optab2 = lookup_multi_ifn_optab (hi, !TYPE_UNSIGNED (vectype));
>> }
>>
>> I don't think we need to check they are a specfic fn code, as we look-up
>> optabs and if they succeed then surely we can vectorize?
>>
>> OK for trunk?
>
> In the first patch I see some uses of safe_as_tree_code like
>
> + if (ch.is_tree_code ())
> + return op1 == NULL_TREE ? gimple_build_assign (lhs,
> ch.safe_as_tree_code (),
> + op0) :
> + gimple_build_assign (lhs, ch.safe_as_tree_code
> (),
> + op0, op1);
> + else
> + {
> + internal_fn fn = as_internal_fn (ch.safe_as_fn_code ());
> + gimple* stmt;
>
> where the context actually requires a valid tree code. Please change those
> to force to tree code / ifn code. Just use explicit casts here and the other
> places that are similar. Before the as_internal_fn just put a
> gcc_assert (ch.is_internal_fn ()).
Also, doesn't the above ?: simplify to the "else" arm? Null trailing
arguments would be ignored for unary operators.
I wasn't sure what to make of the op0 handling:
> +/* Build a GIMPLE_ASSIGN or GIMPLE_CALL with the tree_code,
> + or internal_fn contained in ch, respectively. */
> +gimple *
> +vect_gimple_build (tree lhs, code_helper ch, tree op0, tree op1)
> +{
> + if (op0 == NULL_TREE)
> + return NULL;
Can that happen, and if so, does returning null make sense?
Maybe an assert would be safer.
Thanks,
Richard
