Extend SLP permutation optimisations

Currently SLP tries to force permute operations "down" the graph
from loads in the hope of reducing the total number of permutations
needed or (in the best case) removing the need for the permutations
entirely.  This patch tries to extend it as follows:

- Allow loads to take a different permutation from the one they
  started with, rather than choosing between "original permutation"
  and "no permutation".

- Allow changes in both directions, if the target supports the
  reverse permutation.

- Treat the placement of permutations as a two-way dataflow problem:
  after propagating information from leaves to roots (as now), propagate
  information back up the graph.

- Take execution frequency into account when optimising for speed,
  so that (for example) permutations inside loops have a higher
  cost than permutations outside loops.

- Try to reduce the total number of permutations when optimising for
  size, even if that increases the number of permutations on a given
  execution path.

See the big block comment above vect_optimize_slp_pass for
a detailed description.

The original motivation for doing this was to add a framework that would
allow other layout differences in future.  The two main ones are:

- Make it easier to represent predicated operations, including
  predicated operations with gaps.  E.g.:

     a[0] += 1;
     a[1] += 1;
     a[3] += 1;

  could be a single load/add/store for SVE.  We could handle this
  by representing a layout such as { 0, 1, _, 2 } or { 0, 1, _, 3 }
  (depending on what's being counted).  We might need to move
  elements between lanes at various points, like with permutes.

  (This would first mean adding support for stores with gaps.)

- Make it easier to switch between an even/odd and unpermuted layout
  when switching between wide and narrow elements.  E.g. if a widening
  operation produces an even vector and an odd vector, we should try
  to keep operations on the wide elements in that order rather than
  force them to be permuted back "in order".

To give some examples of what the patch does:

int f1(int *__restrict a, int *__restrict b, int *__restrict c,
       int *__restrict d)
{
  a[0] = (b[1] << c[3]) - d[1];
  a[1] = (b[0] << c[2]) - d[0];
  a[2] = (b[3] << c[1]) - d[3];
  a[3] = (b[2] << c[0]) - d[2];
}

continues to produce the same code as before when optimising for
speed: b, c and d are permuted at load time.  But when optimising
for size we instead permute c into the same order as b+d and then
permute the result of the arithmetic into the same order as a:

        ldr     q1, [x2]
        ldr     q0, [x1]
        ext     v1.16b, v1.16b, v1.16b, gcc-mirror#8     // <------
        sshl    v0.4s, v0.4s, v1.4s
        ldr     q1, [x3]
        sub     v0.4s, v0.4s, v1.4s
        rev64   v0.4s, v0.4s                   // <------
        str     q0, [x0]
        ret

The following function:

int f2(int *__restrict a, int *__restrict b, int *__restrict c,
       int *__restrict d)
{
  a[0] = (b[3] << c[3]) - d[3];
  a[1] = (b[2] << c[2]) - d[2];
  a[2] = (b[1] << c[1]) - d[1];
  a[3] = (b[0] << c[0]) - d[0];
}

continues to push the reverse down to just before the store,
like the previous code did.

In:

int f3(int *__restrict a, int *__restrict b, int *__restrict c,
       int *__restrict d)
{
  for (int i = 0; i < 100; ++i)
    {
      a[0] = (a[0] + c[3]);
      a[1] = (a[1] + c[2]);
      a[2] = (a[2] + c[1]);
      a[3] = (a[3] + c[0]);
      c += 4;
    }
}

the loads of a are hoisted and the stores of a are sunk, so that
only the load from c happens in the loop.  When optimising for
speed, we prefer to have the loop operate on the reversed layout,
changing on entry and exit from the loop:

        mov     x3, x0
        adrp    x0, .LC0
        add     x1, x2, 1600
        ldr     q2, [x0, #:lo12:.LC0]
        ldr     q0, [x3]
        mov     v1.16b, v0.16b
        tbl     v0.16b, {v0.16b - v1.16b}, v2.16b    // <--------
        .p2align 3,,7
.L6:
        ldr     q1, [x2], 16
        add     v0.4s, v0.4s, v1.4s
        cmp     x2, x1
        bne     .L6
        mov     v1.16b, v0.16b
        adrp    x0, .LC0
        ldr     q2, [x0, #:lo12:.LC0]
        tbl     v0.16b, {v0.16b - v1.16b}, v2.16b    // <--------
        str     q0, [x3]
        ret

Similarly, for the very artificial testcase:

int f4(int *__restrict a, int *__restrict b, int *__restrict c,
       int *__restrict d)
{
  int a0 = a[0];
  int a1 = a[1];
  int a2 = a[2];
  int a3 = a[3];
  for (int i = 0; i < 100; ++i)
    {
      a0 ^= c[0];
      a1 ^= c[1];
      a2 ^= c[2];
      a3 ^= c[3];
      c += 4;
      for (int j = 0; j < 100; ++j)
	{
	  a0 += d[1];
	  a1 += d[0];
	  a2 += d[3];
	  a3 += d[2];
	  d += 4;
	}
      b[0] = a0;
      b[1] = a1;
      b[2] = a2;
      b[3] = a3;
      b += 4;
    }
  a[0] = a0;
  a[1] = a1;
  a[2] = a2;
  a[3] = a3;
}

the a vector in the inner loop maintains the order { 1, 0, 3, 2 },
even though it's part of an SCC that includes the outer loop.
In other words, this is a motivating case for not assigning
permutes at SCC granularity.  The code we get is:

        ldr     q0, [x0]
        mov     x4, x1
        mov     x5, x0
        add     x1, x3, 1600
        add     x3, x4, 1600
        .p2align 3,,7
.L11:
        ldr     q1, [x2], 16
        sub     x0, x1, #1600
        eor     v0.16b, v1.16b, v0.16b
        rev64   v0.4s, v0.4s              // <---
        .p2align 3,,7
.L10:
        ldr     q1, [x0], 16
        add     v0.4s, v0.4s, v1.4s
        cmp     x0, x1
        bne     .L10
        rev64   v0.4s, v0.4s              // <---
        add     x1, x0, 1600
        str     q0, [x4], 16
        cmp     x3, x4
        bne     .L11
        str     q0, [x5]
        ret

bb-slp-layout-17.c is a collection of compile tests for problems
I hit with earlier versions of the patch.  The same prolems might
show up elsewhere, but it seemed worth having the test anyway.

In slp-11b.c we previously pushed the permutation of the in[i*4]
group down from the load to just before the store.  That didn't
reduce the number or frequency of the permutations (or increase
them either).  But separating the permute from the load meant
that we could no longer use load/store lanes.

Whether load/store lanes are a good idea here is another question.
If there were two sets of loads, and if we could use a single
permutation instead of one per load, then avoiding load/store
lanes should be a good thing even under the current abstract
cost model.  But I think under the current model we should
try to avoid splitting up potential load/store lanes groups
if there is no specific benefit to the split.

Preferring load/store lanes is still a source of missed optimisations
that we should fix one day...

gcc/
	* params.opt (-param=vect-max-layout-candidates=): New parameter.
	* doc/invoke.texi (vect-max-layout-candidates): Document it.
	* tree-vectorizer.h (auto_lane_permutation_t): New typedef.
	(auto_load_permutation_t): Likewise.
	* tree-vect-slp.cc (vect_slp_node_weight): New function.
	(slpg_layout_cost): New class.
	(slpg_vertex): Replace perm_in and perm_out with partition,
	out_degree, weight and out_weight.
	(slpg_partition_info, slpg_partition_layout_costs): New classes.
	(vect_optimize_slp_pass): Likewise, cannibalizing some part of
	the previous vect_optimize_slp.
	(vect_optimize_slp): Use it.

gcc/testsuite/
	* lib/target-supports.exp (check_effective_target_vect_var_shift):
	Return true for aarch64.
	* gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-layout-1.c: New test.
	* gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-layout-2.c: New test.
	* gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-layout-3.c: New test.
	* gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-layout-4.c: New test.
	* gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-layout-5.c: New test.
	* gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-layout-6.c: New test.
	* gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-layout-7.c: New test.
	* gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-layout-8.c: New test.
	* gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-layout-9.c: New test.
	* gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-layout-10.c: New test.
	* gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-layout-11.c: New test.
	* gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-layout-13.c: New test.
	* gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-layout-14.c: New test.
	* gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-layout-15.c: New test.
	* gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-layout-16.c: New test.
	* gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-layout-17.c: New test.
	* gcc.dg/vect/slp-11b.c: XFAIL SLP test for load-lanes targets.

Author: rsandifo-arm

gcc/doc/invoke.texi

@@ -14619,6 +14619,10 @@ Complex expressions slow the analyzer.
 Maximum number of arguments in a PHI supported by TREE if conversion
 unless the loop is marked with simd pragma.
 
+@item vect-max-layout-candidates
+The maximum number of possible vector layouts (such as permutations)
+to consider when optimizing to-be-vectorized code.
+
 @item vect-max-version-for-alignment-checks
 The maximum number of run-time checks that can be performed when
 doing loop versioning for alignment in the vectorizer.

gcc/params.opt

@@ -1137,6 +1137,10 @@ Whether to use canonical types.
 Common Joined UInteger Var(param_vect_epilogues_nomask) Init(1) IntegerRange(0, 1) Param Optimization
 Enable loop epilogue vectorization using smaller vector size.
 
+-param=vect-max-layout-candidates=
+Common Joined UInteger Var(param_vect_max_layout_candidates) Init(32) Param Optimization
+Maximum number of possible vector layouts (such as permutations) to consider when optimizing to-be-vectorized code.
+
 -param=vect-max-peeling-for-alignment=
 Common Joined UInteger Var(param_vect_max_peeling_for_alignment) Init(-1) IntegerRange(0, 64) Param Optimization
 Maximum number of loop peels to enhance alignment of data references in a loop.

gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-layout-1.c

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+
+int a[4], b[4], c[4], d[4];
+
+void f1()
+{
+  a[0] = (b[1] << c[3]) - d[1];
+  a[1] = (b[0] << c[2]) - d[0];
+  a[2] = (b[3] << c[1]) - d[3];
+  a[3] = (b[2] << c[0]) - d[2];
+}
+
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "add new stmt: \[^\\n\\r\]* = VEC_PERM_EXPR" 3 "slp2" { target { vect_var_shift && vect_perm } } } } */

gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-layout-10.c

@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-additional-options "-Os -fno-tree-loop-vectorize" } */
+
+#include "bb-slp-layout-9.c"
+
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "add new stmt: \[^\\n\\r\]* = VEC_PERM_EXPR" 1 "slp1" { target { vect_int && { vect_perm && vect_hw_misalign } } } } } */

gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-layout-11.c

@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-additional-options "-fno-tree-loop-vectorize" } */
+
+int a[4], b[4], c[400], d[400];
+
+void f1()
+{
+  int a0 = a[0] - b[0];
+  int a1 = a[1] + b[1];
+  int a2 = a[2] - b[2];
+  int a3 = a[3] + b[3];
+  int b0 = a0;
+  int b1 = a1;
+  int b2 = a2;
+  int b3 = a3;
+  for (int i = 0; i < 100; ++i)
+    {
+      a0 += c[i * 4 + 1];
+      a1 += c[i * 4 + 0];
+      a2 += c[i * 4 + 3];
+      a3 += c[i * 4 + 2];
+      b0 ^= d[i * 4 + 3];
+      b1 ^= d[i * 4 + 2];
+      b2 ^= d[i * 4 + 1];
+      b3 ^= d[i * 4 + 0];
+    }
+  a[0] = a0 ^ b0;
+  a[1] = a1 ^ b1;
+  a[2] = a2 ^ b2;
+  a[3] = a3 ^ b3;
+}
+
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "add new stmt: \[^\\n\\r\]* = VEC_PERM_EXPR" 4 "slp1" { target { vect_int && vect_perm } } } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "duplicating permutation node" "slp1" { target { vect_int && vect_perm } } } } */

gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-layout-12.c

@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-additional-options "-Os -fno-tree-loop-vectorize" } */
+
+#include "bb-slp-layout-11.c"
+
+/* It would be better to keep the original three permutations.  */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "add new stmt: \[^\\n\\r\]* = VEC_PERM_EXPR" 3 "slp1" { target { vect_int && { vect_perm && vect_hw_misalign } } xfail { *-*-* } } } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-not "duplicating permutation node" "slp1" { target { vect_int && { vect_perm && vect_hw_misalign } } xfail { *-*-* } } } } */

gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-layout-13.c

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+
+int a[4], b[4], c[4], d[4];
+
+void f1()
+{
+  a[0] = (b[1] << c[3]) - (d[1] >> c[3]);
+  a[1] = (b[0] << c[2]) - (d[0] >> c[2]);
+  a[2] = (b[3] << c[1]) - (d[3] >> c[1]);
+  a[3] = (b[2] << c[0]) - (d[2] >> c[0]);
+}
+
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "add new stmt: \[^\\n\\r\]* = VEC_PERM_EXPR" 3 "slp2" { target { vect_var_shift && vect_perm } } } } */

gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-layout-14.c

@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-additional-options "-Os" } */
+
+#include "bb-slp-layout-13.c"
+
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "add new stmt: \[^\\n\\r\]* = VEC_PERM_EXPR" 2 "slp2" { target { vect_var_shift && { vect_perm && vect_hw_misalign } } } } } */

gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-layout-15.c

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+
+int a[4], b[4], c[4], d[4];
+
+void f1()
+{
+  a[0] = (b[3] << c[3]) - d[0];
+  a[1] = (b[2] << c[2]) - d[2];
+  a[2] = (b[1] << c[1]) - d[4];
+  a[3] = (b[0] << c[0]) - d[6];
+}
+
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "add new stmt: \[^\\n\\r\]* = VEC_PERM_EXPR" 1 "slp2" { target { vect_var_shift && vect_perm } } } } */

gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-layout-16.c

@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-additional-options "-Os" } */
+
+#include "bb-slp-layout-15.c"
+
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "add new stmt: \[^\\n\\r\]* = VEC_PERM_EXPR" 1 "slp2" { target { vect_var_shift && { vect_perm && vect_hw_misalign } } } } } */