This PR separate addend from FMA operands to support cascade FMA. In
some microarchitectures (e.g., ARM cortex-a72 and XiangShan-NanHu), FP
multiply-accumulate pipelines support late-forwarding of accumulate
operands, which reduces the latency of a sequence of multiply-accumulate
instructions.
See also #70232.
D150312 added a TODO:
TODO: consider renaming the field `StartAtCycle` and `Cycles` to
`AcquireAtCycle` and `ReleaseAtCycle` respectively, to stress the
fact that resource allocation is now represented as an interval,
relatively to the issue cycle of the instruction.
This patch implements that TODO. This naming clarifies how to use these
fields in the scheduler. In addition it was confusing that `StartAtCycle` was
singular but `Cycles` was plural. This renaming fixes this inconsistency.
This commit as previously reverted since it missed renaming that came
down after rebasing. This version of the commit fixes those problems.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D158568
D150312 added a TODO:
TODO: consider renaming the field `StartAtCycle` and `Cycles` to
`AcquireAtCycle` and `ReleaseAtCycle` respectively, to stress the
fact that resource allocation is now represented as an interval,
relatively to the issue cycle of the instruction.
This patch implements that TODO. This naming clarifies how to use these
fields in the scheduler. In addition it was confusing that `StartAtCycle` was
singular but `Cycles` was plural. This renaming fixes this inconsistency.
This commit as previously reverted since it missed renaming that came
down after rebasing. This version of the commit fixes those problems.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D158568
D150312 added a TODO:
TODO: consider renaming the field `StartAtCycle` and `Cycles` to
`AcquireAtCycle` and `ReleaseAtCycle` respectively, to stress the
fact that resource allocation is now represented as an interval,
relatively to the issue cycle of the instruction.
This patch implements that TODO. This naming clarifies how to use these
fields in the scheduler. In addition it was confusing that `StartAtCycle` was
singular but `Cycles` was plural. This renaming fixes this inconsistency.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D158568
We don't distinquish signed vs unsigned for B and H loads.
Maybe this split was because LDWU isn't in RV32I? I don't think
that distinction matters to the scheduler. If your processor
only supports RV32I then having LWU in the SchedClass doesn't matter.
If your target supports RV64I, then LW and LWU are likely the same.
sifive-7-series has macrofusion support to convert a branch over
a single instruction into a conditional instruction. This can be
an improvement if the branch is hard to predict.
This patch adds support for the most basic case, a branch over a
move instruction. This is implemented as a pseudo instruction so
we can hide the control flow until all code motion passes complete.
I've disabled a recent select optimization if this feature is enabled
in the subtarget.
Related gcc patch for the same optimization https://www.mail-archive.com/gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org/msg211045.html
Reviewed By: reames
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D135814
This extension does not appear to be on its way to ratification.
Out of the unratified bitmanip extensions, this one had the
largest impact on the compiler.
Posting this patch to start a discussion about whether we should
remove these extensions. We'll talk more at the RISC-V sync meeting this
Thursday.
Reviewed By: asb, reames
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D133834
ALU seems a little vague. FAdd felt more precise even though it
also include FSUB instructions.
Reviewed By: monkchiang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D133632
The floating point stores use a different register class, it
probably makes sense to have a different SchedRead.
Reviewed By: monkchiang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D131379
This patch adds support for zbkx extension from K extension(v1.0.0) in MC layer.
Instructions with same functionality and same encoding is defined in the bitmanip extension.
It defines {Xperm8, Xperm4} as instruction aliases for xperm.* in Zbp extension. When Zbkx is enabled while Zbp is not, xperm.h will not be available. When Zbkx and Zbp are both enabled, the instructions will be decoded in Zbp format.
[[ https://reviews.llvm.org/D94999 | D94999 ]] this is the patch that introduces xperm.* instructions.
Reviewed By: craig.topper
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D117889
This commit is currently implementing supports for scalar cryptography extension for LLVM according to version v1.0.0 of [K Ext specification](https://github.com/riscv/riscv-crypto/releases)(scala crypto has been ratified already). Currently, we are implementing the MC (Machine Code) layer of his extension and the majority of work is done under `llvm/lib/Target/RISCV` directory. There are also some test files in `llvm/test/MC/RISCV` directory.
Remove the subfeature of Zbk* which conflict with b extensions to reduce the size of the patch.
(Zbk* will be resubmit after this patch has been merged)
**Co-author：**@ksyx & @VincentWu & @lihongliang & @achieveartificialintelligence
Reviewed By: craig.topper
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98136
This commit add instructions supports of `zbkb` which defined in scalar cryptography extension version v1.0.0 (has been ratified already).
Most of the zbkb directives reuse parts of the zbp and zbb directives, so this patch just modified some of the inst aliases and predicates.
Reviewed By: craig.topper
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D117640
This string no longer appears in the Vector Extension specification.
The segment load/store instructions are just part of the vector
instruction set.
Reviewed By: asb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D117724
`zve` is the new standard vector extension to specify varying degrees of
vector support for embedding processors. The `zve` extension is related
to the `zvl` extension and other updates that are added in v1.0.
According to https://github.com/riscv-non-isa/riscv-c-api-doc/pull/21,
Clang defines macro `__riscv_v_max_elen`, `__riscv_v_max_elen_fp` for
`zve` and it can be used by applications that uses the vector extension.
Authored by: Zakk Chen <zakk.chen@sifive.com> @khchen
Co-Authored by: Eop Chen <eop.chen@sifive.com> @eopXD
Reviewed By: craig.topper
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112408
Zbc extension:
CLMUL/CLMULR/CLMULH are grouped together, defined one schedule class.
Zbs extension:
BCLR/BSET/BINV/BEXT are grouped together, defined one schedule class.
BCLRI/BSETI/BINVI/BEXTI are grouped together, defined one schedule class.
Reviewed By: craig.topper
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D117538
Add the scheduling resources for the V extension pseudo instructions.
Authored-by: Evandro Menezes <evandro.menezes@sifive.com>
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113353
It's unlikely that FMADD and FMSUB would have different scheduling
information so merge them.
Reviewed By: HsiangKai
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99140
I've used IALU for the simplest operations from Zbb:
min, minu, max, maxu, sext.b, sext.h, zext.h, andn, orn, xnor
I've put add.uw in IALU32 and slli.uw in ShiftImm32.
Remaining instructions have received new classes.
All 3 sh*add are grouped together. sh*add.uw are grouped together.
Rotate left and right are together. Everything else got their own
class containing one instruction.
I think what I have here is the minimum granularity we need. I
could be convinced that we need more classes.
Reviewed By: evandro
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99040
Previously only immediate shifts were in WriteShift. Register
shifts were grouped with IALU. Seems likely that immediate shifts
would be as fast or faster than register shifts. And that immediate
shifts wouldn't be any faster than IALU. So if any deserved to be in
their own group it should be register shifts not immediate shifts.
Rather than try to flip them let's just add more granularity
and give each kind their own class. I've used new names for both to
make them unambiguous and to force any downstream implementations to
be forced to put correct information in their scheduler models.
Reviewed By: evandro
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98911
