This will currently accept the old number of bytes syntax, and convert
it to a scalar. This should be removed in the near future (I think I
converted all of the tests already, but likely missed a few).
Not sure what the exact syntax and policy should be. We can continue
printing the number of bytes for non-generic instructions to avoid
test churn and only allow non-scalar types for generic instructions.
This will currently print the LLT in parentheses, but accept parsing
the existing integers and implicitly converting to scalar. The
parentheses are a bit ugly, but the parser logic seems unable to deal
without either parentheses or some keyword to indicate the start of a
type.
Replace individual operands GLC, SLC, and DLC with a single cache_policy
bitmask operand. This will reduce the number of operands in MIR and I hope
the amount of code. These operands are mostly 0 anyway.
Additional advantage that parser will accept these flags in any order unlike
now.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D96469
The hardware has created a real mess in the naming for add/sub, which
have been renamed basically every generation. Switch the carry out
pseudos to have the gfx9/gfx10 names. We were using the original SI/CI
v_add_i32/v_sub_i32 names. Later targets reintroduced these names as
carryless instructions with a saturating clamp bit, which we do not
define. Do this rename so we can unambiguously add these missing
instructions.
The carry-in versions should also be renamed, but at least those had a
consistent _u32 name to begin with. The 16-bit instructions were also
renamed, but aren't ambiguous.
This does regress assembler error message quality in some cases. In
mismatched wave32/wave64 situations, this will switch from
"unsupported instruction" to "invalid operand", with the error
pointing at the wrong position. I couldn't quite follow how the
assembler selects these, but the previous behavior seemed accidental
to me. It looked like there was a partial attempt to handle this which
was never completed (i.e. there is an AMDGPUOperand::isBoolReg but it
isn't used for anything).
Summary:
G_GEP is rather poorly named. It's a simple pointer+scalar addition and
doesn't support any of the complexities of getelementptr. I therefore
propose that we rename it. There's a G_PTR_MASK so let's follow that
convention and go with G_PTR_ADD
Reviewers: volkan, aditya_nandakumar, bogner, rovka, arsenm
Subscribers: sdardis, jvesely, wdng, nhaehnle, hiraditya, jrtc27, atanasyan, arphaman, Petar.Avramovic, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69734
