Commit Graph

5 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Matt Arsenault 4b4496312e AMDGPU: Start adding MODE register uses to instructions
This is the groundwork required to implement strictfp. For now, this
should be NFC for regular instructoins (many instructions just gain an
extra use of a reserved register). Regalloc won't rematerialize
instructions with reads of physical registers, but we were suffering
from that anyway with the exec reads.

Should add it for all the related FP uses (possibly with some
extras). I did not add it to either the gpr index mode instructions
(or every single VALU instruction) since it's a ridiculous feature
already modeled as an arbitrary side effect.

Also work towards marking instructions with FP exceptions. This
doesn't actually set the bit yet since this would start to change
codegen. It seems nofpexcept is currently not implied from the regular
IR FP operations. Add it to some MIR tests where I think it might
matter.
2020-05-27 14:47:00 -04:00
Matt Arsenault 12994a70cf AMDGPU: Use SGPR_128 instead of SReg_128 for vregs
SGPR_128 only includes the real allocatable SGPRs, and SReg_128 adds
the additional non-allocatable TTMP registers. There's no point in
allocating SReg_128 vregs. This shrinks the size of the classes
regalloc needs to consider, which is usually good.

llvm-svn: 374284
2019-10-10 07:11:33 +00:00
Stanislav Mekhanoshin a6322941ff [AMDGPU] gfx1010 VMEM and SMEM implementation
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61330

llvm-svn: 359621
2019-04-30 22:08:23 +00:00
David Stuttard 20ea21c6ed [AMDGPU] Add support for immediate operand for S_ENDPGM
Summary:
Add support for immediate operand in S_ENDPGM

Change-Id: I0c56a076a10980f719fb2a8f16407e9c301013f6

Reviewers: alexshap

Subscribers: qcolombet, arsenm, kzhuravl, jvesely, wdng, nhaehnle, yaxunl, tpr, t-tye, eraman, arphaman, Petar.Avramovic, llvm-commits

Tags: #llvm

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59213

llvm-svn: 355902
2019-03-12 09:52:58 +00:00
Tim Renouf 4be70ba94a [RegisterCoalescer] Fix for assert in removePartialRedundancy
Summary:
I got "Use not jointly dominated by defs" when removePartialRedundancy
attempted to prune then re-extend a subrange whose only liveness was a
dead def at the copy being removed.

V2: Removed junk from test. Improved comment.
V3: Addressed minor review comments.

Subscribers: MatzeB, qcolombet, nhaehnle, llvm-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50914

Change-Id: I6f894e9f517f71e921e0c6d81d28c5f344db8dad
llvm-svn: 340549
2018-08-23 17:28:33 +00:00