| Message ID | alpine.DEB.2.20.2307062153310.28892@tpp.orcam.me.uk |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | testsuite: Exclude vector tests for unsupported targets | expand |
On Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 11:37 PM Maciej W. Rozycki <macro@embecosm.com> wrote: > > The bb-slp-pr95839.c test assumes quad-single float vector support, but > some targets only support pairs of floats, causing this test to fail > with such targets. Limit this test to targets that support at least > 128-bit vectors then, and add a complementing test that can be run with > targets that have support for 64-bit vectors only. There is no need to > adjust bb-slp-pr95839-2.c as 128 bits are needed even for the smallest > vector of doubles, so support is implied by the presence of vectors of > doubles. I wonder why you see the testcase FAIL, on x86-64 when doing typedef float __attribute__((vector_size(32))) v4f32; v4f32 f(v4f32 a, v4f32 b) { /* Check that we vectorize this CTOR without any loads. */ return (v4f32){a[0] + b[0], a[1] + b[1], a[2] + b[2], a[3] + b[3], a[4] + b[4], a[5] + b[5], a[6] + b[6], a[7] + b[7]}; } I see we vectorize the add and the "store". We fail to perform extraction from the incoming vectors (unless you enable AVX), that's a missed optimization. So with paired floats I would expect sth similar? Maybe x86 is saved by kind-of-presence (but disabled) of V8SFmode vectors. That said, we should handle this better so can you file an enhancement bugreport for this? Thanks, Richard. > gcc/testsuite/ > * gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-pr95839.c: Limit to `vect128' targets. > * gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-pr95839-v8.c: New test. > --- > gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-pr95839-v8.c | 14 ++++++++++++++ > gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-pr95839.c | 1 + > 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+) > > gcc-test-bb-slp-pr95839-vect128.diff > Index: gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-pr95839-v8.c > =================================================================== > --- /dev/null > +++ gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-pr95839-v8.c > @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ > +/* { dg-do compile } */ > +/* { dg-require-effective-target vect_float } */ > +/* { dg-require-effective-target vect64 } */ > +/* { dg-additional-options "-w -Wno-psabi" } */ > + > +typedef float __attribute__((vector_size(8))) v2f32; > + > +v2f32 f(v2f32 a, v2f32 b) > +{ > + /* Check that we vectorize this CTOR without any loads. */ > + return (v2f32){a[0] + b[0], a[1] + b[1]}; > +} > + > +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "optimized: basic block" "slp2" } } */ > Index: gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-pr95839.c > =================================================================== > --- gcc.orig/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-pr95839.c > +++ gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-pr95839.c > @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@ > /* { dg-do compile } */ > /* { dg-require-effective-target vect_float } */ > +/* { dg-require-effective-target vect128 } */ > /* { dg-additional-options "-w -Wno-psabi" } */ > > typedef float __attribute__((vector_size(16))) v4f32;
On Fri, 7 Jul 2023, Richard Biener wrote: > > The bb-slp-pr95839.c test assumes quad-single float vector support, but > > some targets only support pairs of floats, causing this test to fail > > with such targets. Limit this test to targets that support at least > > 128-bit vectors then, and add a complementing test that can be run with > > targets that have support for 64-bit vectors only. There is no need to > > adjust bb-slp-pr95839-2.c as 128 bits are needed even for the smallest > > vector of doubles, so support is implied by the presence of vectors of > > doubles. > > I wonder why you see the testcase FAIL, on x86-64 when doing > > typedef float __attribute__((vector_size(32))) v4f32; > > v4f32 f(v4f32 a, v4f32 b) > { > /* Check that we vectorize this CTOR without any loads. */ > return (v4f32){a[0] + b[0], a[1] + b[1], a[2] + b[2], a[3] + b[3], > a[4] + b[4], a[5] + b[5], a[6] + b[6], a[7] + b[7]}; > } > > I see we vectorize the add and the "store". We fail to perform > extraction from the incoming vectors (unless you enable AVX), > that's a missed optimization. > > So with paired floats I would expect sth similar? Maybe > x86 is saved by kind-of-presence (but disabled) of V8SFmode vectors. I am not familiar enough with this stuff to answer your question. As we pass and return V2SF data in FP registers just as with complex float data with this hardware the function from my bb-slp-pr95839-v8.c expands to a single vector FP add instruction, followed by a function return. Conversely, the original function from bb-slp-pr95839.c expands to a sequence of 22 instructions to extract incoming vector FP data from 4 64-bit GPRs into 8 FPRs, add the vectors piecemeal with 4 scalar FP add instructions, and then insert outgoing vector FP data from 4 FPRs back to 2 64-bit GPRs. As an experiment I have modified the backend minimally so as to pass and return V4SF data in FP registers as well, but that didn't make the vectoriser trigger. > That said, we should handle this better so can you file an > enhancement bugreport for this? Filed as PR -optimization/110630. I can't publish RISC-V information related to the hardware affected, but as a quick check I ran the MIPS compiler: $ mips-linux-gnu-gcc -march=mips64 -mabi=64 -mpaired-single -O2 -S bb-slp-pr95839*.c and got this code for bb-slp-pr95839-v8.c (mind the branch delay slot): jr $31 add.ps $f0,$f12,$f13 vs code for bb-slp-pr95839.c: daddiu $sp,$sp,-64 sd $5,24($sp) sd $7,40($sp) lwc1 $f0,24($sp) lwc1 $f1,40($sp) sd $4,16($sp) sd $6,32($sp) add.s $f3,$f0,$f1 lwc1 $f0,28($sp) lwc1 $f1,44($sp) lwc1 $f4,36($sp) swc1 $f3,56($sp) add.s $f2,$f0,$f1 lwc1 $f0,16($sp) lwc1 $f1,32($sp) swc1 $f2,60($sp) add.s $f1,$f0,$f1 lwc1 $f0,20($sp) ld $3,56($sp) add.s $f0,$f0,$f4 swc1 $f1,48($sp) swc1 $f0,52($sp) ld $2,48($sp) jr $31 daddiu $sp,$sp,64 so this is essentially the same scenario (up to the machine instruction count), and therefore it seems backend-agnostic. I can imagine the latter case could expand to something like (instruction reordering surely needed for performance omitted for clarity): dmtc1 $4,$f0 dmtc1 $5,$f1 dmtc1 $6,$f2 dmtc1 $7,$f3 add.ps $f0,$f0,$f1 add.ps $f2,$f2,$f3 dmfc1 $2,$f0 jr $31 dmfc1 $3,$f2 saving a lot of cycles, and removing the need for spilling temporaries to the stack and for frame creation in the first place. Do you agree it still makes sense to include bb-slp-pr95839-v8.c with the testsuite? Maciej
On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 5:01 PM Maciej W. Rozycki <macro@embecosm.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 7 Jul 2023, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > The bb-slp-pr95839.c test assumes quad-single float vector support, but > > > some targets only support pairs of floats, causing this test to fail > > > with such targets. Limit this test to targets that support at least > > > 128-bit vectors then, and add a complementing test that can be run with > > > targets that have support for 64-bit vectors only. There is no need to > > > adjust bb-slp-pr95839-2.c as 128 bits are needed even for the smallest > > > vector of doubles, so support is implied by the presence of vectors of > > > doubles. > > > > I wonder why you see the testcase FAIL, on x86-64 when doing > > > > typedef float __attribute__((vector_size(32))) v4f32; > > > > v4f32 f(v4f32 a, v4f32 b) > > { > > /* Check that we vectorize this CTOR without any loads. */ > > return (v4f32){a[0] + b[0], a[1] + b[1], a[2] + b[2], a[3] + b[3], > > a[4] + b[4], a[5] + b[5], a[6] + b[6], a[7] + b[7]}; > > } > > > > I see we vectorize the add and the "store". We fail to perform > > extraction from the incoming vectors (unless you enable AVX), > > that's a missed optimization. > > > > So with paired floats I would expect sth similar? Maybe > > x86 is saved by kind-of-presence (but disabled) of V8SFmode vectors. > > I am not familiar enough with this stuff to answer your question. > > As we pass and return V2SF data in FP registers just as with complex > float data with this hardware the function from my bb-slp-pr95839-v8.c > expands to a single vector FP add instruction, followed by a function > return. > > Conversely, the original function from bb-slp-pr95839.c expands to a > sequence of 22 instructions to extract incoming vector FP data from 4 > 64-bit GPRs into 8 FPRs, add the vectors piecemeal with 4 scalar FP add > instructions, and then insert outgoing vector FP data from 4 FPRs back to > 2 64-bit GPRs. As an experiment I have modified the backend minimally so > as to pass and return V4SF data in FP registers as well, but that didn't > make the vectoriser trigger. > > > That said, we should handle this better so can you file an > > enhancement bugreport for this? > > Filed as PR -optimization/110630. Thanks! > I can't publish RISC-V information > related to the hardware affected, but as a quick check I ran the MIPS > compiler: > > $ mips-linux-gnu-gcc -march=mips64 -mabi=64 -mpaired-single -O2 -S bb-slp-pr95839*.c > > and got this code for bb-slp-pr95839-v8.c (mind the branch delay slot): > > jr $31 > add.ps $f0,$f12,$f13 > > vs code for bb-slp-pr95839.c: > > daddiu $sp,$sp,-64 > sd $5,24($sp) > sd $7,40($sp) > lwc1 $f0,24($sp) > lwc1 $f1,40($sp) > sd $4,16($sp) > sd $6,32($sp) > add.s $f3,$f0,$f1 > lwc1 $f0,28($sp) > lwc1 $f1,44($sp) > lwc1 $f4,36($sp) > swc1 $f3,56($sp) > add.s $f2,$f0,$f1 > lwc1 $f0,16($sp) > lwc1 $f1,32($sp) > swc1 $f2,60($sp) > add.s $f1,$f0,$f1 > lwc1 $f0,20($sp) > ld $3,56($sp) > add.s $f0,$f0,$f4 > swc1 $f1,48($sp) > swc1 $f0,52($sp) > ld $2,48($sp) > jr $31 > daddiu $sp,$sp,64 > > so this is essentially the same scenario (up to the machine instruction > count), and therefore it seems backend-agnostic. I can imagine the latter > case could expand to something like (instruction reordering surely needed > for performance omitted for clarity): > > dmtc1 $4,$f0 > dmtc1 $5,$f1 > dmtc1 $6,$f2 > dmtc1 $7,$f3 > add.ps $f0,$f0,$f1 > add.ps $f2,$f2,$f3 > dmfc1 $2,$f0 > jr $31 > dmfc1 $3,$f2 > > saving a lot of cycles, and removing the need for spilling temporaries to > the stack and for frame creation in the first place. > > Do you agree it still makes sense to include bb-slp-pr95839-v8.c with the > testsuite? Sure, more coverage is always nice. Richard. > Maciej
On Wed, 12 Jul 2023, Richard Biener wrote: > > > That said, we should handle this better so can you file an > > > enhancement bugreport for this? > > > > Filed as PR -optimization/110630. > > Thanks! Thanks for making this improvement. I've checked MIPS results and code produced now is as follows: daddiu $sp,$sp,-64 sd $5,24($sp) sd $7,40($sp) ldc1 $f0,24($sp) ldc1 $f1,40($sp) sd $4,16($sp) sd $6,32($sp) ldc1 $f2,32($sp) add.ps $f1,$f0,$f1 ldc1 $f0,16($sp) add.ps $f0,$f0,$f2 sdc1 $f1,56($sp) ld $3,56($sp) sdc1 $f0,48($sp) ld $2,48($sp) jr $31 daddiu $sp,$sp,64 which does do vector stuff now, although it's still considerably worse than my handwritten example: > > dmtc1 $4,$f0 > > dmtc1 $5,$f1 > > dmtc1 $6,$f2 > > dmtc1 $7,$f3 > > add.ps $f0,$f0,$f1 > > add.ps $f2,$f2,$f3 > > dmfc1 $2,$f0 > > jr $31 > > dmfc1 $3,$f2 Or I'd say it's pretty terrible, but given the current situation with the MIPS backend I'm going to leave it to the new maintainer to sort out. > > Do you agree it still makes sense to include bb-slp-pr95839-v8.c with the > > testsuite? > > Sure, more coverage is always nice. Thanks, committed (with the `vect64' requirement removed, as we can take it for granted with `vect_float'). Maciej
On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 4:34 PM Maciej W. Rozycki <macro@embecosm.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Jul 2023, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > > That said, we should handle this better so can you file an > > > > enhancement bugreport for this? > > > > > > Filed as PR -optimization/110630. > > > > Thanks! > > Thanks for making this improvement. I've checked MIPS results and code > produced now is as follows: > > daddiu $sp,$sp,-64 > sd $5,24($sp) > sd $7,40($sp) > ldc1 $f0,24($sp) > ldc1 $f1,40($sp) > sd $4,16($sp) > sd $6,32($sp) > ldc1 $f2,32($sp) > add.ps $f1,$f0,$f1 > ldc1 $f0,16($sp) > add.ps $f0,$f0,$f2 > sdc1 $f1,56($sp) > ld $3,56($sp) > sdc1 $f0,48($sp) > ld $2,48($sp) > jr $31 > daddiu $sp,$sp,64 > > which does do vector stuff now, although it's still considerably worse > than my handwritten example: > > > > dmtc1 $4,$f0 > > > dmtc1 $5,$f1 > > > dmtc1 $6,$f2 > > > dmtc1 $7,$f3 > > > add.ps $f0,$f0,$f1 > > > add.ps $f2,$f2,$f3 > > > dmfc1 $2,$f0 > > > jr $31 > > > dmfc1 $3,$f2 > > Or I'd say it's pretty terrible, but given the current situation with the > MIPS backend I'm going to leave it to the new maintainer to sort out. Yeah, I also wondered what is wrong ... I suspect it's the usual issue of parameter passing causing spilling ... > > > Do you agree it still makes sense to include bb-slp-pr95839-v8.c with the > > > testsuite? > > > > Sure, more coverage is always nice. > > Thanks, committed (with the `vect64' requirement removed, as we can take > it for granted with `vect_float'). > > Maciej
On Thu, 20 Jul 2023, Richard Biener wrote: > > Thanks for making this improvement. I've checked MIPS results and code > > produced now is as follows: > > > > daddiu $sp,$sp,-64 > > sd $5,24($sp) > > sd $7,40($sp) > > ldc1 $f0,24($sp) > > ldc1 $f1,40($sp) > > sd $4,16($sp) > > sd $6,32($sp) > > ldc1 $f2,32($sp) > > add.ps $f1,$f0,$f1 > > ldc1 $f0,16($sp) > > add.ps $f0,$f0,$f2 > > sdc1 $f1,56($sp) > > ld $3,56($sp) > > sdc1 $f0,48($sp) > > ld $2,48($sp) > > jr $31 > > daddiu $sp,$sp,64 > > > > which does do vector stuff now, although it's still considerably worse > > than my handwritten example: > > > > > > dmtc1 $4,$f0 > > > > dmtc1 $5,$f1 > > > > dmtc1 $6,$f2 > > > > dmtc1 $7,$f3 > > > > add.ps $f0,$f0,$f1 > > > > add.ps $f2,$f2,$f3 > > > > dmfc1 $2,$f0 > > > > jr $31 > > > > dmfc1 $3,$f2 > > > > Or I'd say it's pretty terrible, but given the current situation with the > > MIPS backend I'm going to leave it to the new maintainer to sort out. > > Yeah, I also wondered what is wrong ... I suspect it's the usual issue > of parameter passing causing spilling ... There's no such requirement in the psABI and I fail to see a plausible justification. And direct GPR<->FPR move patterns are available in the backend for the V2SF mode. Also there's no delay slot requirement even for these move instructions for MIPS64r1+ ISA levels, which have this paired-single FP format defined. It seems to me a plain bug (or missed optimisation if you prefer). Maciej
On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 11:16 AM Maciej W. Rozycki <macro@embecosm.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 20 Jul 2023, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > Thanks for making this improvement. I've checked MIPS results and code > > > produced now is as follows: > > > > > > daddiu $sp,$sp,-64 > > > sd $5,24($sp) > > > sd $7,40($sp) > > > ldc1 $f0,24($sp) > > > ldc1 $f1,40($sp) > > > sd $4,16($sp) > > > sd $6,32($sp) > > > ldc1 $f2,32($sp) > > > add.ps $f1,$f0,$f1 > > > ldc1 $f0,16($sp) > > > add.ps $f0,$f0,$f2 > > > sdc1 $f1,56($sp) > > > ld $3,56($sp) > > > sdc1 $f0,48($sp) > > > ld $2,48($sp) > > > jr $31 > > > daddiu $sp,$sp,64 > > > > > > which does do vector stuff now, although it's still considerably worse > > > than my handwritten example: > > > > > > > > dmtc1 $4,$f0 > > > > > dmtc1 $5,$f1 > > > > > dmtc1 $6,$f2 > > > > > dmtc1 $7,$f3 > > > > > add.ps $f0,$f0,$f1 > > > > > add.ps $f2,$f2,$f3 > > > > > dmfc1 $2,$f0 > > > > > jr $31 > > > > > dmfc1 $3,$f2 > > > > > > Or I'd say it's pretty terrible, but given the current situation with the > > > MIPS backend I'm going to leave it to the new maintainer to sort out. > > > > Yeah, I also wondered what is wrong ... I suspect it's the usual issue > > of parameter passing causing spilling ... > > There's no such requirement in the psABI and I fail to see a plausible > justification. And direct GPR<->FPR move patterns are available in the > backend for the V2SF mode. Also there's no delay slot requirement even > for these move instructions for MIPS64r1+ ISA levels, which have this > paired-single FP format defined. It seems to me a plain bug (or missed > optimisation if you prefer). Definitely. OTOH parameter/return passing for V4SFmode while appearantly being done in registers the backend(?) assigns BLKmode to the V4SFmode arguments so they get immediately spilled in the code moving the incoming hardregisters to pseudos (or stack as in this case). It comes down to the issue that Jiufu Guo is eventually addressing with adding SRA-style heuristics to the code chosing the layout of that storage. Interestingly for the return value we get TImode. Note we don't seem to be able to optimize (insn 6 21 8 2 (set (mem/c:DI (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 78 $frame) (const_int 24 [0x18])) [1 a+8 S8 A64]) (reg:DI 5 $5)) "t.c":4:1 322 {*movdi_64bit} (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:DI 5 $5) (nil))) ... (insn 40 7 41 2 (set (reg:V2SF 205 [ a+8 ]) (mem/c:V2SF (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 78 $frame) (const_int 24 [0x18])) [1 a+8 S8 A64])) "t.c":6:23 387 {*movv2sf} (expr_list:REG_EQUIV (mem/c:V2SF (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 78 $frame) (const_int 24 [0x18])) [1 a+8 S8 A64]) (nil))) for some reason. Maybe we are afraid of the hardreg use in the store, maybe it is because the store is in the prologue (before NOTE_INSN_FUNCTION_BEG). Also postreload isn't able to fix this: (insn 6 21 8 2 (set (mem/c:DI (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 29 $sp) (const_int 24 [0x18])) [1 a+8 S8 A64]) (reg:DI 5 $5)) "t.c":4:1 322 {*movdi_64bit} (nil)) ... (insn 40 7 41 2 (set (reg:V2SF 32 $f0 [orig:205 a+8 ] [205]) (mem/c:V2SF (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 29 $sp) (const_int 24 [0x18])) [1 a+8 S8 A64])) "t.c":6:23 387 {*movv2sf} (expr_list:REG_EQUIV (mem/c:V2SF (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 78 $frame) (const_int 24 [0x18])) [1 a+8 S8 A64]) (nil))) so something is amiss in the backend as well if you say there should be direct moves available. Richard. > > Maciej
On Thu, 20 Jul 2023, Richard Biener wrote: > > There's no such requirement in the psABI and I fail to see a plausible > > justification. And direct GPR<->FPR move patterns are available in the > > backend for the V2SF mode. Also there's no delay slot requirement even > > for these move instructions for MIPS64r1+ ISA levels, which have this > > paired-single FP format defined. It seems to me a plain bug (or missed > > optimisation if you prefer). > > Definitely. OTOH parameter/return passing for V4SFmode while > appearantly being done in registers the backend(?) assigns BLKmode > to the V4SFmode arguments so they get immediately spilled in the MIPS NewABI targets use registers to return data of small aggregate types (effectively of up to the TImode size), so this seems reasonable to me. FP scalars and aggregates made of up to two fields are returned in FPRs and any other data is returned in GPRs: "* Function results are returned in $2 (and $3 if needed), or $f0 (and $f2 if needed), as appropriate for the type. Composite results (struct, union, or array) are returned in $2/$f0 and $3/$f2 according to the following rules: " - A struct with only one or two floating point fields is returned in $f0 (and $f2 if necessary). This is a generalization of the Fortran COMPLEX case. " - Any other struct or union results of at most 128 bits are returned in $2 (first 64 bits) and $3 (remainder, if necessary)." Given that V4SFmode data has more than two FP fields (it's effectively an array of four) it is correctly returned in GPRs (even though the advantage of this arrangement is questionable, but the NewABI predates the invention of the paired-single FP format by a few years, which was only introduced with the MIPS V ISA, and actually implemented with the MIPS64r1 ISA even later). A similar NewABI rule works here for the arguments. I suspect the relevant part of the backend handles it correctly for other modes and was missed in the update for V4SFmode, which was a change on its own. The only sufficiently old version of GCC I have ready to use is 4.1.2 and it produces the same code, so at least it does not seem to be a regression. > code moving the incoming hardregisters to pseudos (or stack as in > this case). It comes down to the issue that Jiufu Guo is eventually > addressing with adding SRA-style heuristics to the code chosing > the layout of that storage. Interestingly for the return value we get > TImode. That may come from the use of the GPRs I suppose. > Note we don't seem to be able to optimize > > (insn 6 21 8 2 (set (mem/c:DI (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 78 $frame) > (const_int 24 [0x18])) [1 a+8 S8 A64]) > (reg:DI 5 $5)) "t.c":4:1 322 {*movdi_64bit} > (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:DI 5 $5) > (nil))) > ... > (insn 40 7 41 2 (set (reg:V2SF 205 [ a+8 ]) > (mem/c:V2SF (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 78 $frame) > (const_int 24 [0x18])) [1 a+8 S8 A64])) "t.c":6:23 387 > {*movv2sf} > (expr_list:REG_EQUIV (mem/c:V2SF (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 78 $frame) > (const_int 24 [0x18])) [1 a+8 S8 A64]) > (nil))) > > for some reason. Maybe we are afraid of the hardreg use in the store, I believe the reason is the relevant constraints use the `*' modifier so as not to spill FP values to GPRs or vice versa (ISTR a discussion as to why we should prevent it from happening and I don't remember the outcome, but overall it seems reasonable to me), so once we've spilled to memory it won't be undone. That doesn't mean we should refrain from moving directly when data is there already in the "wrong" kind of register. > maybe it is because the store is in the prologue (before > NOTE_INSN_FUNCTION_BEG). Also postreload isn't able to fix this: > > (insn 6 21 8 2 (set (mem/c:DI (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 29 $sp) > (const_int 24 [0x18])) [1 a+8 S8 A64]) > (reg:DI 5 $5)) "t.c":4:1 322 {*movdi_64bit} > (nil)) > ... > (insn 40 7 41 2 (set (reg:V2SF 32 $f0 [orig:205 a+8 ] [205]) > (mem/c:V2SF (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 29 $sp) > (const_int 24 [0x18])) [1 a+8 S8 A64])) "t.c":6:23 387 > {*movv2sf} > (expr_list:REG_EQUIV (mem/c:V2SF (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 78 $frame) > (const_int 24 [0x18])) [1 a+8 S8 A64]) > (nil))) > > so something is amiss in the backend as well if you say there should be > direct moves available. There are, they're alternatives #5/#6 (`mtc'/`mfc') in `*movv2sf' and they're handled correctly by `mips_output_move' AFAICT. Hardware has always had it, so there's no ISA constraint here. But as I say, I'm leaving it to the backend maintainer to sort out. Maciej
Index: gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-pr95839-v8.c =================================================================== --- /dev/null +++ gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-pr95839-v8.c @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +/* { dg-do compile } */ +/* { dg-require-effective-target vect_float } */ +/* { dg-require-effective-target vect64 } */ +/* { dg-additional-options "-w -Wno-psabi" } */ + +typedef float __attribute__((vector_size(8))) v2f32; + +v2f32 f(v2f32 a, v2f32 b) +{ + /* Check that we vectorize this CTOR without any loads. */ + return (v2f32){a[0] + b[0], a[1] + b[1]}; +} + +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "optimized: basic block" "slp2" } } */ Index: gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-pr95839.c =================================================================== --- gcc.orig/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-pr95839.c +++ gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-pr95839.c @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@ /* { dg-do compile } */ /* { dg-require-effective-target vect_float } */ +/* { dg-require-effective-target vect128 } */ /* { dg-additional-options "-w -Wno-psabi" } */ typedef float __attribute__((vector_size(16))) v4f32;