Support for XNACK and SRAMECC is not static on some GPUs. We must be able
to differentiate between different scenarios for these dynamic subtarget
features.
The possible settings are:
- Unsupported: The GPU has no support for XNACK/SRAMECC.
- Any: Preference is unspecified. Use conservative settings that can run anywhere.
- Off: Request support for XNACK/SRAMECC Off
- On: Request support for XNACK/SRAMECC On
GCNSubtarget will track the four options based on the following criteria. If
the subtarget does not support XNACK/SRAMECC we say the setting is
"Unsupported". If no subtarget features for XNACK/SRAMECC are requested we
must support "Any" mode. If the subtarget features XNACK/SRAMECC exist in the
feature string when initializing the subtarget, the settings are "On/Off".
The defaults are updated to be conservatively correct, meaning if no setting
for XNACK or SRAMECC is explicitly requested, defaults will be used which
generate code that can be run anywhere. This corresponds to the "Any" setting.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85882
The def instruction for the vreg may not match, because it may be
folding through a reg_sequence. The assert was overly conservative and
not necessary. It's not actually important if DefMI really defined the
register, because the fold that will be done cares about the def of
the value that will be folded.
For some reason copies aren't making it through the reg_sequence,
although they should.
llvm-svn: 363876
Summary:
Also explicitly port over some tests in llvm.amdgcn.image.* that were
missing. Some tests are removed because they no longer apply (i.e.
explicitly testing building an address vector via insertelement).
This is in preparation for the eventual removal of the old-style
intrinsics.
Some additional notes:
- constant-address-space-32bit.ll: change some GCN-NEXT to GCN because
the instruction schedule was subtly altered
- insert_vector_elt.ll: the old test didn't actually test anything,
because %tmp1 was not used; remove the load, because it doesn't work
(Because of the amdgpu_ps calling convention? In any case, it's
orthogonal to what the test claims to be testing.)
Change-Id: Idfa99b6512ad139e755e82b8b89548ab08f0afcf
Reviewers: arsenm, rampitec
Subscribers: MatzeB, qcolombet, kzhuravl, wdng, yaxunl, dstuttard, tpr, t-tye, javed.absar, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48018
llvm-svn: 335229
Note: This is a candidate for LLVM 6.0, because it was planned to be
in that release but was delayed due to a long review period.
Merge conflict in release_60 - resolution:
Add "-p6:32:32" into the second (non-amdgiz) string.
Only scalar loads support 32-bit pointers. An address in a VGPR will
fail to compile. That's OK because the results of loads will only be used
in places where VGPRs are forbidden.
Updated AMDGPUAliasAnalysis and used SReg_64_XEXEC.
The tests cover all uses cases we need for Mesa.
Reviewers: arsenm, nhaehnle
Subscribers: kzhuravl, wdng, yaxunl, dstuttard, tpr, t-tye, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41651
llvm-svn: 324487
Austin Kerbow