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
This can help avoid needing a virtual register for the vsetvl output
when the AVL is X0. For other register AVLs it can shorter the live
range of the AVL register if it isn't needed later.
There's probably no advantage when AVL is a 5 bit immediate that
can use vsetivli. But do it anyway for consistency.
Reviewed By: rogfer01
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103215
We aren't going to connect the result to anything so we might
as well avoid allocating a register.
Reviewed By: frasercrmck, HsiangKai
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102031
Rather than doing splatting each separately and doing bit manipulation
to merge them in the vector domain, copy the data to the stack
and splat it using a strided load with x0 stride. At least on
some implementations this vector load is optimized to not do
a load for each element.
This is equivalent to how we move i64 to f64 on RV32.
I've only implemented this for the intrinsic fallbacks in this
patch. I think we do similar splatting/shifting/oring in other
places. If this is approved, I'll refactor the others to share
the code.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101002
This patch change the rvv frame layout that proposed in D94465. In patch D94465, In the eliminateFrameIndex function,
to eliminate the rvv frame index, create temp virtual register is needed. This virtual register should be scavenged by class
RegsiterScavenger. If the machine function has other unused registers, there is no problem. But if there isn't unused registers,
we need a emergency spill slot. Because of the emergency spill slot belongs to the scalar local variables field, to access emergency
spill slot, we need a temp virtual register again. This makes the compiler report the "Incomplete scavenging after 2nd pass" error.
So I change the rvv frame layout as follows:
```
|--------------------------------------|
| arguments passed on the stack |
|--------------------------------------|<--- fp
| callee saved registers |
|--------------------------------------|
| rvv vector objects(local variables |
| and outgoing arguments |
|--------------------------------------|
| realignment field |
|--------------------------------------|
| scalar local variable(also contains|
| emergency spill slot) |
|--------------------------------------|<--- bp
| variable-sized local variables |
|--------------------------------------|<--- sp
```
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D97111
Currently we crash in type legalization any time an intrinsic
uses a scalar i64 on RV32.
This patch adds support for type legalizing this to prevent
crashing. I don't promise that it uses the best possible codegen
just that it is functional.
This first version handles 3 cases. vmv.v.x intrinsic, vmv.s.x
intrinsic and intrinsics that take a scalar input, splat it and
then do some operation.
For vmv.v.x we'll either rely on hardware sign extension for
constants or we'll convert it to multiple splats and bit
manipulation.
For vmv.s.x we use a really unoptimal sequence inspired by what
we do for an INSERT_VECTOR_ELT.
For the third case we'll either try to use the .vi form for
constants or convert to a complicated splat and bitmanip and use
the .vv form of the operation.
I've renamed the ExtendOperand field to SplatOperand now use it
specifically for the third case. The first two cases are handled
by custom lowering specifically for those intrinsics.
I haven't updated all tests yet, but I tried to cover a subset
that includes single-width, widening, and narrowing.
Reviewed By: frasercrmck
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D97895
In vector v0.10, there are whole vector register load/store
instructions. I suggest to use the whole register load/store
instructions for generic load/store for scalable vector types. It could
save up vset{i}vl{i} for these load/store.
For fractional LMUL, I keep to use vle{eew}.v/vse{eew}.v instructions to
load/store partial vector registers.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95853
If the destination is tied, then user has some control of the
register used for input. They would have the ability to control
the value of any tail elements. By using tail agnostic we take
this option away from them.
Its not clear that the intrinsics are defined such that this isn't
supposed to work. And undisturbed is a valid implementation for agnostic
so code wouldn't even fail to work on all systems if we always used
agnostic.
The vcompress intrinsic is defined to require tail undisturbed so
at minimum we need this for that instruction or need to redefine
the intrinsic.
I've made an exception here for vmv.s.x/fmv.s.f and reduction
instructions which only write to element 0 regardless of the tail
policy. This allows us to keep the agnostic policy on those which
should allow better redundant vsetvli removal.
An enhancement would be to check for undef input and keep the
agnostic policy, but we don't have good test coverage for that yet.
Reviewed By: khchen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93878
The default behavior for any_extend of a constant is to zero extend.
This occurs inside of getNode rather than allowing type legalization
to promote the constant which would sign extend. By using sign extend
with getNode the constant will be sign extended. This gives a better
chance for isel to find a simm5 immediate since all xlen bits are
examined there.
For instructions that use a uimm5 immediate, this change only affects
constants >= 128 for i8 or >= 32768 for i16. Constants that large
already wouldn't have been eligible for uimm5 and would need to use a
scalar register.
If the instruction isn't able to use simm5 or the immediate is
too large, we'll need to materialize the immediate in a register.
As far as I know constants with all 1s in the upper bits should
materialize as well or better than all 0s.
Longer term we should probably have a SEW aware PatFrag to ignore
the bits above SEW before checking simm5.
I updated about half the test cases in some tests to use a negative
constant to get coverage for this.
Reviewed By: evandro
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93487
Jim Lin