| Message ID | CAFULd4YLMkqhHroVogJbC3_GPdCKPxB3JkE2M8m37rB6-tJaaw@mail.gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On 01/03/2012 06:47 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > if (d->testing_p) > return true; > > + hi = shift < nelt ? d->op1 : d->op0; > + lo = shift < nelt ? d->op0 : d->op1; > + > + shift %= nelt; This bit only works for little-endian. It's why I had that assert for shift range 1-63, for one thing. I guess an extra check for big-endian before the loop could fix that. I.e. shift = d->perm[0]; + if (BYTES_BIG_ENDIAN && shift > nelt) + return false; r~
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 9:31 PM, Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com> wrote: > On 01/03/2012 06:47 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: >> if (d->testing_p) >> return true; >> >> + hi = shift < nelt ? d->op1 : d->op0; >> + lo = shift < nelt ? d->op0 : d->op1; >> + >> + shift %= nelt; > > This bit only works for little-endian. It's why I had that assert > for shift range 1-63, for one thing. > > I guess an extra check for big-endian before the loop could fix that. > I.e. > > shift = d->perm[0]; > + if (BYTES_BIG_ENDIAN && shift > nelt) > + return false; I tried to investigate -mbig-endian a bit, but unfortunately almost all gcc.dg/torture/vshuf-*.c tests FAIL with -O2 on unpatched gcc. Tests pass with -O0, though. Due to this, I committed only the obvious part of the patch, that is: 2012-01-02 Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> * config/ia64/ia64.c (expand_vec_perm_broadcast): Use correct operands for extzv pattern. Uros.
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 9:31 PM, Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com> wrote: >> On 01/03/2012 06:47 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: >>> if (d->testing_p) >>> return true; >>> >>> + hi = shift < nelt ? d->op1 : d->op0; >>> + lo = shift < nelt ? d->op0 : d->op1; >>> + >>> + shift %= nelt; >> >> This bit only works for little-endian. It's why I had that assert >> for shift range 1-63, for one thing. >> >> I guess an extra check for big-endian before the loop could fix that. >> I.e. >> >> shift = d->perm[0]; >> + if (BYTES_BIG_ENDIAN && shift > nelt) >> + return false; > > I tried to investigate -mbig-endian a bit, but unfortunately almost > all gcc.dg/torture/vshuf-*.c tests FAIL with -O2 on unpatched gcc. > Tests pass with -O0, though. ATM, we have gcc.dg/torture/vshuf*.c: Native configuration is ia64-unknown-linux-gnu === gcc tests === Running target unix FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/vshuf-v2si.c -O2 (internal compiler error) FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/vshuf-v2si.c -O2 (test for excess errors) UNRESOLVED: gcc.dg/torture/vshuf-v2si.c -O2 compilation failed to produce executable === gcc Summary for unix === # of expected passes 30 # of unexpected failures 2 # of unresolved testcases 1 # of unsupported tests 112 Running target unix/-mbig-endian FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/vshuf-v16hi.c -O2 execution test FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/vshuf-v16qi.c -O2 execution test FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/vshuf-v2sf.c -O2 execution test FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/vshuf-v2si.c -O2 (internal compiler error) FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/vshuf-v2si.c -O2 (test for excess errors) UNRESOLVED: gcc.dg/torture/vshuf-v2si.c -O2 compilation failed to produce executable FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/vshuf-v32qi.c -O2 execution test FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/vshuf-v4hi.c -O2 execution test FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/vshuf-v4sf.c -O2 execution test FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/vshuf-v4si.c -O2 execution test FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/vshuf-v8hi.c -O2 execution test FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/vshuf-v8qi.c -O2 execution test FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/vshuf-v8si.c -O2 execution test === gcc Summary for unix/-mbig-endian === # of expected passes 20 # of unexpected failures 12 # of unresolved testcases 1 # of unsupported tests 112 === gcc Summary === # of expected passes 50 # of unexpected failures 14 # of unresolved testcases 2 # of unsupported tests 224 /home/uros/gcc-build/gcc/xgcc version 4.7.0 20120103 (experimental) [trunk revision 182829] (GCC) Uros.
On 01/03/2012 09:50 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > I tried to investigate -mbig-endian a bit, but unfortunately almost > all gcc.dg/torture/vshuf-*.c tests FAIL with -O2 on unpatched gcc. > Tests pass with -O0, though. Tests without -O don't actually test this code. And -mbig-endian doesn't get big-endian execution on linux, so it's only useful for manually examining assembly and checking for ICEs. r~
Index: config/ia64/ia64.c =================================================================== --- config/ia64/ia64.c (revision 182780) +++ config/ia64/ia64.c (working copy) @@ -11085,7 +11085,7 @@ static bool expand_vec_perm_shrp (struct expand_vec_perm_d *d) { unsigned i, nelt = d->nelt, shift, mask; - rtx tmp, op0, op1;; + rtx tmp, hi, lo; /* ??? Don't force V2SFmode into the integer registers. */ if (d->vmode == V2SFmode) @@ -11101,6 +11101,11 @@ expand_vec_perm_shrp (struct expand_vec_perm_d *d) if (d->testing_p) return true; + hi = shift < nelt ? d->op1 : d->op0; + lo = shift < nelt ? d->op0 : d->op1; + + shift %= nelt; + shift *= GET_MODE_UNIT_SIZE (d->vmode) * BITS_PER_UNIT; /* We've eliminated the shift 0 case via expand_vec_perm_identity. */ @@ -11113,11 +11118,9 @@ expand_vec_perm_shrp (struct expand_vec_perm_d *d) shift = 64 - shift; tmp = gen_reg_rtx (DImode); - op0 = (shift < nelt ? d->op0 : d->op1); - op1 = (shift < nelt ? d->op1 : d->op0); - op0 = gen_lowpart (DImode, op0); - op1 = gen_lowpart (DImode, op1); - emit_insn (gen_shrp (tmp, op0, op1, GEN_INT (shift))); + hi = gen_lowpart (DImode, hi); + lo = gen_lowpart (DImode, lo); + emit_insn (gen_shrp (tmp, hi, lo, GEN_INT (shift))); emit_move_insn (d->target, gen_lowpart (d->vmode, tmp)); return true; @@ -11207,7 +11210,7 @@ expand_vec_perm_broadcast (struct expand_vec_perm_ elt *= BITS_PER_UNIT; temp = gen_reg_rtx (DImode); emit_insn (gen_extzv (temp, gen_lowpart (DImode, d->op0), - GEN_INT (elt), GEN_INT (8))); + GEN_INT (8), GEN_INT (elt))); emit_insn (gen_mux1_brcst_qi (d->target, gen_lowpart (QImode, temp))); break;