This change continues with the line of work discussed in https://discourse.llvm.org/t/riscv-transition-in-vector-pseudo-structure-policy-variants/71295.
This change handles most of the binary pseudos. I excluded pseudos which _TIED variants, and those that produce mask results. Both a bit different in functionality, and deserve their own change and review. As with previous changes in the series, we replace the existing TA and TU forms with a single unified pseudo with a passthru (which may be implicit_def) and a policy operand.
As before, we see codegen changes (some improvements and some regressions) due to scheduling differences caused by the extra implicit_def instructions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D154245
This change continues with the line of work discussed in https://discourse.llvm.org/t/riscv-transition-in-vector-pseudo-structure-policy-variants/71295.
This change targets all the pseudos used in loads (unit, strided, segmented, fault first, and their combinations). As with previous changes in the series, we replace the existing TA and TU forms with a single unified pseudo with a passthru (which may be implicit_def) and a policy operand.
One quirk is that I went ahead and treated the unmasked mask load instruction (vlm) the same way. We need the pass thru operand to model tail undefined, but since the instruction is unconditionally agnostic and the instruction has no mask, the policy operand is arguably unneeded. I kept it mostly for consistency sake.
Another quirk worth highlighting is that segment loads require a bit of dedicated handling. Surprisingly, we don't have IMPLICIT_DEF nodes of the right types, and attempting to use them results in some odd looking codegen and a few crashes. Instead, I left the REG_SEQUENCE form, and extended InsertVSETVLI to recognize the complex undefs. Arguably, we should probably revisit the handling of undef reg_sequence nodes here, but I'm hoping to side step that in this patch.
As before, we see codegen changes (some improvements and some regressions) due to scheduling differences caused by the extra implicit_def instructions. I did have to delete one register allocation regression test as I couldn't figure out how to meaningfully update it. I spent a significant amount of time trying, and finally gave up.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D154141
There is an issue: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/63515
The issue is because when expanding SPLAT_VECTOR_SPLIT_I64_VL node, only memoperand is used to create dependency.
However in ScheduleDAGNodes, dependency is checked with chain only, and breaks order of store/load instructions.
I think in llvm.bitreverse.nxv2i64 intrinsic SPLAT_VECTOR_SPLIT_I64_VL nodes are parallel processed,
so no chain should be add to these nodes.
Using temporary in expanding SPLAT_VECTOR_SPLIT_I64_VL node can keep vlse instruction get correct value
no matter order of store instructions is changed.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D153743
This is a follow on to D152740. The focus of this patch is on actually removing the old TA (unsuffixed) version. I realized we already had plumbing for combined TA/TU pseudos - used by some of the ternary instructions. As such, we can go ahead and fully remove the old TA, and rename the _TU variant to be unsuffixed. (The rename must happen in this patch for the table structure to work out as expected.)
The scheduling difference comes from an omission in D152740. If we selected a _MASK variant - either from manual ISEL or instrincs - we were going through doPeepholeMaskedRVV and still getting the TA variant. The use of the IsCombined flag in the MaskedPseudo table causes us to use the TU (now unsuffixed) variant instead.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D153155
This continues towards the goal spelled out in https://discourse.llvm.org/t/riscv-transition-in-vector-pseudo-structure-policy-variants/71295. This patch switches all the binary operations (no widen, no narrow, but both int and FP) to use the _TU + implicit_def passthrough form. Change is mechanical.
This only changes the unmasked variants. Masked variants will still go through doPeepholeMaskedRVV and end up in the unsuffixed/TA form. Fixing that will be a separate change.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D152940
This changes the default value used for mask policy from mask undisturbed to mask agnostic. In hardware, there may be a minor preference for ta/ma, but since this is only going to apply to instructions which don't use the mask policy bit, this is functionally mostly a nop. The main value is to make future changes to using MA when legal for masked instructions easier to review by reducing test churn.
The prior code was motivated by a desire to minimize state transitions between masked and unmasked code. This patch achieves the same effect using the demanded field logic (landed in afb45ff), and there are no regressions I spotted in the test diffs. (Given the size, I have only been able to skim.) I do want to call out that regressions are possible here; the demanded analysis only works on a block local scope right now, so e.g. a tight loop mixing masked and unmasked computation might see an extra vsetvli or two.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D133803
VMV_V_X_VL nodes should always have a passthru, a splat, and a VL.
We were sometimes missing the VL.
This went unnoticed because these cases were all selected into the
following node to form a .vx or .vi instruction. The ComplexPattern
that does this, doesn't check the VL operand. I've added an assert
to the ComplexPattern to catch if the operand is missing.
@qcolombet spotted some of these in D134703.
VMV_V_X_VL nodes should always have a passthru, a splat, and a VL.
We were sometimes missing the VL.
This went unnoticed because these cases were all selected into the
following node to form a .vx or .vi instruction. The ComplexPattern
that does this, doesn't check the VL operand. I've added an assert
to the ComplexPattern to catch if the operand is missing.
@qcolombet spotted some of these in D134703.
RVV doesn't have immediate field for memory addressing. Currently
we build MachineInstructions in PEI to computing stack offset for
RVV load store instructions. These instructions were added too late to
can be optimized by CSE, LICM... passes.
This patch makes FrameIndex SDNodes can't be matched in RVV Load Store
instruction selection patterns. So that the FrameIndex SDNodes would be
selected as `ADDI GPR, targetframeindex`.
There are 2 advantages for such change:
1. Stack objects address computing can be optimized by machine function
passes.
2. Since the ADDI instruction's destination register can be used as a
temp register, we can save an emergency spill slot.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D128187
Add an alias of `addi [x], zero, imm` to generate pseudo
instruction li, which makes assembly mush more readable.
For existed tests, users can update them by running script
`llvm/utils/update_llc_test_checks.py`.
Reviewed By: asb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112692
GPR uses argument registers as the first group of registers to allocate.
This patch uses vector argument registers, v8 to v23, as the first group
to allocate.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111304
We don't have real demanded bits support for MULHU, but we can
still use the known bits based constant folding support at the end
of SimplifyDemandedBits to simplify a MULHU. This helps with cases
where we know the LHS and RHS have enough leading zeros so that
the high multiply result is always 0.
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106471
The existing rule about the operand type is strange. Instead, just say
the operand is a TargetConstant with the right width. (Legalization
ignores TargetConstants, so it doesn't matter if that width is legal.)
Highlights:
1. I had to substantially rewrite the AArch64 isel patterns to expect a
TargetConstant. Nothing too exotic, but maybe a little hairy. Maybe
worth considering a target-specific node with some dagcombines instead
of this complicated nest of isel patterns.
2. Our behavior on RV32 for vectors of i64 has changed slightly. In
particular, we correctly preserve the width of the arithmetic through
legalization. This changes the DAG a bit. Maybe room for
improvement here.
3. I explicitly defined the behavior around overflow. This is necessary
to make the DAGCombine transforms legal, and I don't think it causes any
practical issues.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105673
We assume VLENB is a multiple of 8 and previously relied on shift
pairs being optimized to an AND+SHL/SHR and computeKnownBits
removing the AND. This doesn't happen if (vlenb >> 3) gets CSEd
to have multiple uses. This patch manually emits the best shift
to workaround this.
In most of cases, it has a single space after comma in assembly operands.
Reviewed By: craig.topper
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103790
DAGCombiner was recently taught how to combine STEP_VECTOR nodes,
meaning the step value is no longer guaranteed to be one by the time it
reaches the backend for lowering.
This patch supports such cases on RISC-V by lowering to other step
values to a multiply following the vid.v instruction. It includes a
small optimization for common cases where the multiply can be expressed
as a shift left.
Reviewed By: rogfer01
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100856
It is proper to relax non-negative limitation of step_vector.
Also this patch adds more combines for step_vector:
(sub X, step_vector(C)) -> (add X, step_vector(-C))
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100812
This patch relaxes the requirement that the STEP_VECTOR step constant
must be of a type at least as large as the vector element type. This
does not permit its use on targets which have legal vector element types
larger than the largest legal scalar type, such as i64 vectors on RV32.
As such, the requirement has been loosened so that the step operand must
be any scalar type so long as the constant immediate is non-negative and
the value fits inside the vector element type.
This limits combining optimizations in certain circumstances but in
practice it's unlikely to be a hindrance.
Reviewed By: paulwalker-arm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100660
