Extend widening_mul pass to handle fixed-point types

Hi Richard,


On Wed, 2010-07-28 at 21:15 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana.radhakrishnan@arm.com> writes:
> > Hmmm there are regressions after my patch was applied. I had to do some
> > rebuilds because trunk appears to be broken for other reasons at the
> > minute for ARM which I shall investigate next. 
> 
> Yeah, I think it's the other way about: expand_widen_pattern_expr
> is using the right type and convert_plusminus_to_widen is using
> the wrong one.  The type we pass to optab_for_tree_code determines
> the _sign_ of the multiplication, not the size, so we want to pass
> in the unwidened type.

Thanks for looking at this. Ah - ok. I see what you mean here. 

> 
> > We weren't generating any widening operations before this patch (and I
> > suspect my 2 patches are just for fixing the ICE's and doing the right
> > thing). If it were just adding support for fixed point arithmetic then
> > this is just broken because it shouldn't have changed the way in  which
> > code was generated for normal integer operations.  
> 
> For the record, the patch wasn't just about adding fixed-point support.
> It was also about allowing multiply-accumulate to be used where no plain
> multiplication exists.  So the problem for ARM was that the use of the
> wrong type in convert_plusminus_to_widen was being hidden by the use of
> the right type in convert_mult_widen (i.e. the patch exposed a latent bug).

Thanks for the clarification , that makes more sense now.

> 
> Could you give the attached patch a try?  It also fixes a case where
> the code could create mixed sign-and-unsigned maccs (a bug that existed
> before my patch) and a botched call to is_widening_mult_p (a bug
> introduced by my patch, sorry).

Your patch didn't apply cleanly to pristine trunk or to 162431 and I had
to do a manual merge so I'm not sure if I got all parts of it. 

Just to be absolutely clear, you still need to check for
is_gimple_assign before using the stmt in gimple_assign_lhs in
is_widening_mult_p or do you expect that to get subsumed by your patch ?
Otherwise the compiler ICEs with this testcase [ice-on-gimple-phi.c]. 

Here's what I came up with that includes a manual merge of your patch
assuming I got all the hunks, and my original trivial hunk to
is_widening_mult_p which appeared to fix all the problems with simple
testcases on trunk with a cross-compiler and what I'm bootstrapping and
testing right now.


cheers
Ramana



gcc/
        * tree-ssa-math-opts.c (convert_plusminus_to_widen): Fix type
        used in the call to optab_for_tree_code.  Fix the second
        is_widening_mult_p call.  Check that both unwidened operands
        have the same sign.
	(is_widening_mult_p): Return false if stmt is not a GIMPLE_ASSIGN.



[1]

./xgcc -B`pwd` -S -O2 -mcpu=cortex-a9 ~/ice-on-gimple-phi.c 

assignment./home/ramrad01/ice-on-gimple-phi.c:57:1: internal compiler
error: gimple check: expected gimple_assign(error_mark), have
gimple_phi() in gimple_assign_lhs, at gimple.h:1724

	





> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> gcc/
> 	* tree-ssa-math-opts.c (convert_plusminus_to_widen): Fix type
> 	used in the call to optab_for_tree_code.  Fix the second
> 	is_widening_mult_p call.  Check that both unwidened operands
> 	have the same sign.
> 
> Index: gcc/tree-ssa-math-opts.c
> ===================================================================
> --- gcc/tree-ssa-math-opts.c	2010-07-28 21:09:59.000000000 +0100
> +++ gcc/tree-ssa-math-opts.c	2010-07-28 21:10:00.000000000 +0100
> @@ -1414,13 +1414,6 @@ convert_plusminus_to_widen (gimple_stmt_
>    else
>      wmult_code = WIDEN_MULT_PLUS_EXPR;
>  
> -  /* Verify that the machine can perform a widening multiply
> -     accumulate in this mode/signedness combination, otherwise
> -     this transformation is likely to pessimize code.  */
> -  this_optab = optab_for_tree_code (wmult_code, type, optab_default);
> -  if (optab_handler (this_optab, TYPE_MODE (type)) == CODE_FOR_nothing)
> -    return false;
> -
>    rhs1 = gimple_assign_rhs1 (stmt);
>    rhs2 = gimple_assign_rhs2 (stmt);
>  
> @@ -1447,37 +1440,49 @@ convert_plusminus_to_widen (gimple_stmt_
>        if (!is_widening_mult_p (rhs1_stmt, &type1, &mult_rhs1,
>  			       &type2, &mult_rhs2))
>  	return false;
> -      mult_rhs1 = fold_convert (type1, mult_rhs1);
> -      mult_rhs2 = fold_convert (type2, mult_rhs2);
>        add_rhs = rhs2;
>      }
>    else if (rhs2_code == MULT_EXPR)
>      {
> -      if (!is_widening_mult_p (rhs1_stmt, &type1, &mult_rhs1,
> +      if (!is_widening_mult_p (rhs2_stmt, &type1, &mult_rhs1,
>  			       &type2, &mult_rhs2))
>  	return false;
> -      mult_rhs1 = fold_convert (type1, mult_rhs1);
> -      mult_rhs2 = fold_convert (type2, mult_rhs2);
>        add_rhs = rhs1;
>      }
>    else if (code == PLUS_EXPR && rhs1_code == WIDEN_MULT_EXPR)
>      {
>        mult_rhs1 = gimple_assign_rhs1 (rhs1_stmt);
>        mult_rhs2 = gimple_assign_rhs2 (rhs1_stmt);
> +      type1 = TREE_TYPE (mult_rhs1);
> +      type2 = TREE_TYPE (mult_rhs2);
>        add_rhs = rhs2;
>      }
>    else if (rhs2_code == WIDEN_MULT_EXPR)
>      {
>        mult_rhs1 = gimple_assign_rhs1 (rhs2_stmt);
>        mult_rhs2 = gimple_assign_rhs2 (rhs2_stmt);
> +      type1 = TREE_TYPE (mult_rhs1);
> +      type2 = TREE_TYPE (mult_rhs2);
>        add_rhs = rhs1;
>      }
>    else
>      return false;
>  
> +  if (TYPE_UNSIGNED (type1) != TYPE_UNSIGNED (type2))
> +    return false;
> +
> +  /* Verify that the machine can perform a widening multiply
> +     accumulate in this mode/signedness combination, otherwise
> +     this transformation is likely to pessimize code.  */
> +  this_optab = optab_for_tree_code (wmult_code, type1, optab_default);
> +  if (optab_handler (this_optab, TYPE_MODE (type)) == CODE_FOR_nothing)
> +    return false;
> +
>    /* ??? May need some type verification here?  */
>  
> -  gimple_assign_set_rhs_with_ops_1 (gsi, wmult_code, mult_rhs1, mult_rhs2,
> +  gimple_assign_set_rhs_with_ops_1 (gsi, wmult_code,
> +				    fold_convert (type1, mult_rhs1),
> +				    fold_convert (type2, mult_rhs2),
>  				    add_rhs);
>    update_stmt (gsi_stmt (*gsi));
>    return true;

Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana.radhakrishnan@arm.com> writes:
>> Could you give the attached patch a try?  It also fixes a case where
>> the code could create mixed sign-and-unsigned maccs (a bug that existed
>> before my patch) and a botched call to is_widening_mult_p (a bug
>> introduced by my patch, sorry).
>
> Your patch didn't apply cleanly to pristine trunk or to 162431 and I had
> to do a manual merge so I'm not sure if I got all parts of it. 
>
> Just to be absolutely clear, you still need to check for
> is_gimple_assign before using the stmt in gimple_assign_lhs in
> is_widening_mult_p or do you expect that to get subsumed by your patch ?
> Otherwise the compiler ICEs with this testcase [ice-on-gimple-phi.c]. 

For the record -- since I accidentally took this off-list when I started
using the gmail web interface, sorry about that -- the problems Ramana
had applying the patch were due to some kind of mailer issue.  The ICE
in ice-on-gimple-phi.c was due to the s/rhs1_stmt/rhs2_stmt/ part being
missing from the manually-applied patch.

Richard