i386: Fix up xorsign for AVX [PR89984]

Thinking about it more this morning, while this patch fixes the problems
revealed in the testcase, the recent PR89984 change was buggy too, but
perhaps that can be fixed incrementally.  Because for AVX the new code
destructively modifies op1.  If that is different from dest, say on:
float
foo (float x, float y)
{
  return x * __builtin_copysignf (1.0f, y) + y;
}
then we get after RA:
(insn 8 7 9 2 (set (reg:SF 20 xmm0 [orig:82 _2 ] [82])
        (unspec:SF [
                (reg:SF 20 xmm0 [88])
                (reg:SF 21 xmm1 [89])
                (mem/u/c:V4SF (symbol_ref/u:DI ("*.LC0") [flags 0x2]) [0  S16 A128])
            ] UNSPEC_XORSIGN)) "hohoho.c":4:12 649 {xorsignsf3_1}
     (nil))
(insn 9 8 15 2 (set (reg:SF 20 xmm0 [87])
        (plus:SF (reg:SF 20 xmm0 [orig:82 _2 ] [82])
            (reg:SF 21 xmm1 [89]))) "hohoho.c":4:44 1021 {*fop_sf_comm}
     (nil))
but split the xorsign into:
        vandps  .LC0(%rip), %xmm1, %xmm1
        vxorps  %xmm0, %xmm1, %xmm0
and then the addition:
        vaddss  %xmm1, %xmm0, %xmm0
which means we miscompile it - instead of adding y in the end we add
__builtin_copysignf (0.0f, y).
So, wonder if we don't want instead in addition to the &Yv <- Yv, 0
alternative (enabled for both pre-AVX and AVX as in this patch) the
&Yv <- Yv, Yv where destination must be different from inputs and another
Yv <- Yv, Yv where it can be the same but then need a match_scratch
(with X for the other alternatives and =Yv for the last one).
That way we'd always have a safe register we can store the op1 & mask
value into, either the destination (in the first alternative known to
be equal to op1 which is needed for non-AVX but ok for AVX too), in the
second alternative known to be different from both inputs and in the third
which could be used for those
float bar (float x, float y) { return x * __builtin_copysignf (1.0f, y); }
cases where op1 is naturally xmm1 and dest == op0 naturally xmm0 we'd use
some other register like xmm2.

On Wed, Sep 08, 2021 at 05:23:40PM +0800, Hongtao Liu wrote:
> I'm curious why we need the  post_reload splitter @xorsign<mode>3_1
> for scalar mode, can't we just expand them into and/xor operations in
> the expander, just like vector modes did.

Following seems to work for all the testcases I've tried (and in some
generates better code than the post-reload splitter).

2021-09-08  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>
	    liuhongt  <hongtao.liu@intel.com>

	PR target/89984
	* config/i386/i386.md (@xorsign<mode>3_1): Remove.
	* config/i386/i386-expand.c (ix86_expand_xorsign): Expand right away
	into AND with mask and XOR, using paradoxical subregs.
	(ix86_split_xorsign): Remove.
	* config/i386/i386-protos.h (ix86_split_xorsign): Remove.

	* gcc.target/i386/avx-pr102224.c: Fix up PR number.
	* gcc.dg/pr89984.c: New test.
	* gcc.target/i386/avx-pr89984.c: New test.

0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions