This commit includes the necessary changes to clang and LLVM to support
codegen of `RVE` and the `ilp32e`/`lp64e` ABIs.
The differences between `RVE` and `RVI` are:
* `RVE` reduces the integer register count to 16(x0-x16).
* The ABI should be `ilp32e` for 32 bits and `lp64e` for 64 bits.
`RVE` can be combined with all current standard extensions.
The central changes in ilp32e/lp64e ABI, compared to ilp32/lp64 are:
* Only 6 integer argument registers (rather than 8).
* Only 2 callee-saved registers (rather than 12).
* A Stack Alignment of 32bits (rather than 128bits).
* ilp32e isn't compatible with D ISA extension.
If `ilp32e` or `lp64` is used with an ISA that has any of the registers
x16-x31 and f0-f31, then these registers are considered temporaries.
To be compatible with the implementation of ilp32e in GCC, we don't use
aligned registers to pass variadic arguments and set stack alignment\
to 4-bytes for types with length of 2*XLEN.
FastCC is also supported on RVE, while GHC isn't since there is only one
avaiable register.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70401
The patch adds the instructions in Zicfiss extension. Zicfiss extension
is to support shadow stack for control flow integrity. This patch is
based on version [0.3.1].
[0.3.1]: https://github.com/riscv/riscv-cfi/releases/tag/v0.3.1
This reverts 0d3eee33f262402562a1ff28106dbb2f59031bdb and
4c37d30e22ae655394c8b3a7e292c06d393b9b44.
XSfcie is not an official SiFive extension name. It stands for
SiFive Custom Instruction Extension, which is mentioned in the S76
manual, but then elsewhere in the manual says it is not supported
for S76.
LLVM had various instructions and CSRs listed as part of this
extension, but as far as SiFive is concerned, none of them are part
of it. There are no documented extension names for these instructions
and CSRs either externally or internally.
If these are important to LLVM users, I can facilitate creating
extension names for them and have them documented. For now I'm
removing everything.
Unfortunately, these instructions and CSRs are in LLVM 17 so this
is an incompatible change.
This implements experimental support for the Zimop extension as
specified here:
https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-manual/blob/main/src/zimop.adoc.
This change adds only assembly support.
---------
Co-authored-by: ln8-8 <lyut.nersisyan@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: ln8-8 <73429801+ln8-8@users.noreply.github.com>
The RISC-V vector crypto extensions have been ratified. This patch
updates the Clang and LLVM support for these extensions to be
non-experimental, while leaving the C intrinsics as experimental since
the C intrinsics are not yet standardized.
Co-authored-by: Brandon Wu <brandon.wu@sifive.com>
Zcmp codegen is implemented (see RISCVMoveMerger and
RISCVPushPopOptimizer), while Zicbop instructions are selected for
llvm.prefetch instrinsics. So I believe it's correct to mark both as
"Supported" and this is just an oversight.
Following the version bump in #67964 and the bug fix in #68026 I believe
we're ready to mark Zfa as non-experimental. I'll note the GCC torture
suite passes now with Zfa enabled (though it's more of a litmus test
than anything else).
The Zfa specification was recently ratified
<https://wiki.riscv.org/display/HOME/Recently+Ratified+Extensions>. This
commit bumps the version to 1.0, but leaves it as an experimental
extension (to be done in a follow-on patch), so reviews can focus on
confirming there haven't been spec changes we have missed (which as
noted below, is more difficult than usual).
Because the development of the Zfa spec overlapped with the transition
of riscv-isa-manual from LaTeX to AsciiDoc, it's more difficult than
usual to confirm version changes. The linked PDF in RISCVUsage is for
some reason a 404. Key commit histories to review are:
* Changes to zfa.adoc on the main branch
<https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-manual/commits/main/src/zfa.adoc>
* Changes to zfa.tex on the now defunct latex branch
<https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-manual/commits/latex/src/zfa.tex>
From reviewing these, I believe there have been no changes to the spec
since version 0.1/0.2 (sadly the AsciiDoc and LaTeX versions of the spec
are inconsistent about version numbering).
Since zihintntl is ratified now, we could remove the experimental prefix and change its version to 1.0.
Reviewed By: asb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D151547
Implement XCVbi intrinsics for CV32E40P according to the specification.
This commit is part of a patch-set to upstream the 7 vendor specific extensions of CV32E40P.
Contributors: @CharKeaney, @jeremybennett, @lewis-revill, @liaolucy, Nandni Jamnadas, @paolos, @simoncook, @xmj.
bf2ad26b4ff856aab9a62ad168e6bdefeedc374f originally commited.
e4777dc4b9cb371971523cc603e1b8a5c7255e7e reverted due to test failures caused by a merge conflict marker in llvm/test/CodeGen/RISCV/attributes that was accidentally checked in.
This commit removed the conflict marker and recommitted.
Reviewed By: craig.topper
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D154412
Implement XCVbi intrinsics for CV32E40P according to the specification.
This commit is part of a patch-set to upstream the 7 vendor specific extensions of CV32E40P.
Contributors: @CharKeaney, @jeremybennett, @lewis-revill, @liaolucy, Nandni Jamnadas, @PaoloS, @simoncook, @xmj.
Reviewed By: craig.topper
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D154412
Implement XCVsimd intrinsics for CV32E40P according to the specification.
This commit is part of a patch-set to upstream the 7 vendor specific extensions of CV32E40P.
Contributors: @CharKeaney, @jeremybennett, @lewis-revill, @liaolucy, Nandni Jamnadas, @PaoloS, @simoncook, @xmj.
Reviewed By: craig.topper
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D153721
According to the latest spec, Zvfbfwma requires Zvfbfmin and Zvfbfmin requires Zfbfmin, with FLH/FSH/FMV.H.X/HMV.X.H removed from Zvfbfwma.
Reviewed By: asb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D155916
Implement XCValu intrinsics for CV32E40P according to the specification.
This is a commit of the patch-set to upstream the 7 vendor specific extensions of CV32E40P.
Contributors: @CharKeaney, Nandni Jamnadas, Serkan Muhcu, @jeremybennett, @lewis-revill, @liaolucy, @simoncook, @xmj
Reviewed By: craig.topper
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D153748
This is a mostly NFC change cleaning up and clarifying components of the
in-tree CORE-V (xcv*) extensions following discussions on the remaining
extensions.
This makes the following changes to the xcbitmanip and xcvmac support:
1. Add missing extensions from RISCVISAInfo, such that they can be
supported in clang's -march option.
2. Clarify the extension version number is 1.0.0 in documentation.
3. Clarify the extensions are by OpenHW Group, and the capitilization
of the CORE-V extension family.
4. Add CORE-V to extension name in RISCVFeatures, both to be consistent
with other vendors, and also better distinguish e.g. CORE-V bit
manipulation vs RISC-V's standard Zb extensions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D155283
This implements the v1.0-rc1 draft extension.
amocas.d on RV32 and amocas.q have the restriction that rd and rs2 must
be even registers. I've opted to implement this restriction in
RISCVAsmParser::validateInstruction even though for codegen we'll need a
new register class and can then remove this validation. This also
sidesteps, for now, the issue of amocas.d being different on rv32 vs
rv64.
See <https://github.com/riscv-non-isa/riscv-c-api-doc/issues/37> for the
issue of needing an agreed asm register constraint for register pairs.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D149248
This was discussed somewhat in D148315. As it stands, we require in
RISCVISAInfo::parseArchString (used for e.g. -march parsing in Clang)
that extensions are given in the order of z, then s, then x prefixed
extensions (after the standard single-letter extensions). However, we
recently (in D148315) moved to that order from z/x/s as the canonical
ordering was changed in the spec. In addition, recent GCC seems to
require z* extensions before s*.
My recollection of the history here is that we thought keeping -march as
close to the rules for ISA naming strings as possible would simplify
things, as there's an existing spec to point to. My feeling is that now
we've had incompatible changes, and an incompatibility with GCC there's
no real benefit to sticking to this restriction, and it risks making it
much more painful than it needs to be to copy a -march= string between
GCC and Clang.
This patch removes all ordering restrictions so you can freely mix x/s/z
extensions.
To be very explicit, this doesn't change our behaviour when emitting a
canonically ordered extension string (e.g. in build attributes). We of
course sort according to the canonical order (as we understand it) in
that case.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D149246
My MC layer support patches missed adding these to RISCVUsage. Also
update the link to the most recent spec PDF (including the recently
committed encoding fix for vfwmaccbf16.
Implement XCVmac intrinsics for CV32E40P according to the specification.
This is the first commit of a patch-set to upstream the 7 vendor specific extensions of CV32E40P.
The patch-set aims at upstreaming the extensions on MC. The following will be on CodeGen, and the final patch-set will be on builtins if possible. The implemented version is on [0].
Contributors: @CharKeaney, Serkan Muhcu, @jeremybennett, @lewis-revill, @liaolucy, @simoncook, @xmj
Spec: 62bec66b36/docs/source/instruction_set_extensions.rst
[0] https://github.com/openhwgroup/corev-llvm-project
Reviewed By: craig.topper
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D152821
Implement XCVbitmanip intrinsics for CV32E40P according to the specification.
This commit is part of a patch-set to upstream the 7 vendor specific extensions of CV32E40P.
Contributors: @CharKeaney, @jeremybennett, @lewis-revill, @liaolucy, @simoncook, @xmj.
Spec: 62bec66b36/docs/source/instruction_set_extensions.rst
Reviewed By: craig.topper
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D152915
Update the RISC-V Zvk (vector cryptography) extension support from 0.5
to version 0.9.7 (2023-05-31), per
<https://github.com/riscv/riscv-crypto/releases/download/v20230531/riscv-crypto-spec-vector.pdf>
Differences:
- Zvbc is dropped from Zvkn and Zvks, and by extension
from Zvkng and Zvksg;
- new combo extensions Zvknc and Zvksc are introduced,
adding Zvbc to Zvkn and Zvks;
- the experimentatl extensions are tagged as "0.9",
from the earlier "0.5".
Reviewed By: 4vtomat
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D152117
Provides MC layer support for Zvfbfwma: vector BF16 widening mul-add.
As currently specified, Zvfbfwma does not appear to have a dependency on
Zvfbfmin or Zfbfmin.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D147612
Provides MC layer support for Zfbfmin: vector BF16 conversions.
Zvfbfmin does not appear to have a dependency on Zfbfmin as currently
specified.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D147611
Provides MC layer support for Zfbfmin: scalar BF16 conversions.
As documented, this extension includes FLH, FSH, FMV.H.X, and FMH.X.H as
defined in Zfh/Zfhmin, but doesn't require either extension.
No Zfbfinxmin has been defined (though you would expect one in the
future, for symmetry with Zfhinxmin). See issue
https://github.com/riscv/riscv-bfloat16/issues/27.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D147610
This patch add the instructions of zcmp extension.
Instructions in zcmp extension try to optimise `mv` inst and the prologue & epilogue in functions
co-author: @Scott Egerton, @ZirconLiu, @Lukacma, @Heda Chen, @luxufan, @heyiliang, @liaochunyu
Reviewed By: craig.topper
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D132819
Update the Zvk support from 0.3.x to 0.5.1, tracking the extension as
documented in
<https://github.com/riscv/riscv-crypto/releases/download/v20230407/riscv-crypto-spec-vector.pdf>.
- Zvkb is split into Zvbb and Zvbc
- Zvbc (vector carryless multiply) requires 64 bit elements (Zve64x)
- Use the extension descriptions from the specification for Zvbb/Zvbc
- Zvkt is introduced (no instructions, but adds an attribute and macro)
- Zvkn and Zvks both imply Zvkt
- Zvkng and Zvksg are introduced, adding Zvkg (GMAC) to Zvkn and Zvks
- In Zvbb, add vrev.v, vclz.v, vctz.v, vcpop.v, vwsll.{vv,vx,vi}
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D148483
2a5661c8415876be3fbd56ce90c2031e89ba0ef3 added a new external link with
the link text "0.2 draft specification". Surprisingly, as multiple links
have this same text but different targets this causes a warning, which
causes a failure on the llvm-sphinx-docs builder (which treats warnings
as errors). As suggested in
<https://github.com/sphinx-doc/sphinx/issues/3921>, this commit moves to
using anonymous references for the links in the experimental extensions
section.
As of
1f03818281
in the riscv-isa-manual, Zfa is at version 0.2. Reviewing the commit
history for
zfa.tex
<https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-manual/commits/master/src/zfa.tex>
there are no relevant changes since 0.1. As such, we can simply
increment the version number.
This change also removes the claim in RISCVUsage that we implement a
"subset of" Zfa, as I believe this is no longer true. That sentence
previously incorrectly claimed we didn't implement fli.{h,s,d} (I
[corrected this a couple of weeks
ago](https://reviews.llvm.org/rG3d969191b277)) but I think should have
removed the "subset of" wording too.
As was noted during the review, we never added Zfa to the release notes.
This is corrected in this patch.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D148634
