-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.6k
Add support for flag output operand "=@cc" for SystemZ. #125970
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from 7 commits
8a07b3d
d3f3c03
062e03a
5aef564
f10e46b
2ab7a75
132cf31
fccc70e
7ea0c5f
d787c8b
82a26f7
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -1228,6 +1228,11 @@ class TargetInfo : public TransferrableTargetInfo, | |
std::string &/*SuggestedModifier*/) const { | ||
return true; | ||
} | ||
|
||
// CC is binary on most targets. SystemZ overrides it as CC interval is | ||
// [0, 4). | ||
virtual unsigned getFlagOutputCCUpperBound() const { return 2; } | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Can this go into ConstraintInfo instead of a new hook? |
||
|
||
virtual bool | ||
validateAsmConstraint(const char *&Name, | ||
TargetInfo::ConstraintInfo &info) const = 0; | ||
|
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -115,10 +115,19 @@ class LLVM_LIBRARY_VISIBILITY SystemZTargetInfo : public TargetInfo { | |
return RegName == "r15"; | ||
} | ||
|
||
// CC has interval [0, 4). | ||
unsigned getFlagOutputCCUpperBound() const override { return 4; } | ||
bool validateAsmConstraint(const char *&Name, | ||
TargetInfo::ConstraintInfo &info) const override; | ||
|
||
std::string convertConstraint(const char *&Constraint) const override { | ||
if (llvm::StringRef(Constraint).starts_with("@cc")) { | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Why are we trying to support different constraint strings here? On our platform, it should be enough to check for exact match against |
||
auto Len = llvm::StringRef("@cc").size(); | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. This is a compile-time constant. Again, in SystemZ.cpp that is hard-coded; why do we need this expression here? |
||
std::string Converted = | ||
std::string("{") + std::string(Constraint, Len) + std::string("}"); | ||
Constraint += Len - 1; | ||
uweigand marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
return Converted; | ||
} | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I think we also should have a |
||
switch (Constraint[0]) { | ||
case 'p': // Keep 'p' constraint. | ||
return std::string("p"); | ||
|
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ | ||
// RUN: %clang_cc1 -O2 -triple s390x-linux -emit-llvm -o - %s | FileCheck %s | ||
|
||
int foo_012(int x) { | ||
// CHECK-LABEL: @foo_012 | ||
// CHECK: = tail call { i32, i32 } asm "ahi $0,42\0A", "=d,={@cc},0"(i32 %x) | ||
int cc; | ||
asm ("ahi %[x],42\n" : [x] "+d"(x), "=@cc" (cc)); | ||
return cc == 0 || cc == 1 || cc == 2 ? 42 : 0; | ||
} | ||
|
||
int foo_013(int x) { | ||
// CHECK-LABEL: @foo_013 | ||
// CHECK: = tail call { i32, i32 } asm "ahi $0,42\0A", "=d,={@cc},0"(i32 %x) | ||
int cc; | ||
asm ("ahi %[x],42\n" : [x] "+d"(x), "=@cc" (cc)); | ||
return cc == 0 || cc == 1 || cc == 3 ? 42 : 0; | ||
} | ||
|
||
int foo_023(int x) { | ||
// CHECK-LABEL: @foo_023 | ||
// CHECK: = tail call { i32, i32 } asm "ahi $0,42\0A", "=d,={@cc},0"(i32 %x) | ||
int cc; | ||
asm ("ahi %[x],42\n" : [x] "+d"(x), "=@cc" (cc)); | ||
return cc == 0 || cc == 2 || cc == 3 ? 42 : 0; | ||
} | ||
|
||
int foo_123(int x) { | ||
// CHECK-LABEL: @foo_123 | ||
// CHECK: = tail call { i32, i32 } asm "ahi $0,42\0A", "=d,={@cc},0"(i32 %x) | ||
int cc; | ||
asm ("ahi %[x],42\n" : [x] "+d"(x), "=@cc" (cc)); | ||
return cc == 1 || cc == 2 || cc == 3 ? 42 : 0; | ||
} |
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ | ||
// RUN: %clang -target systemz-unknown-unknown -x c -E -dM -o - %s | FileCheck -match-full-lines %s | ||
// RUN: %clang -target s390x-unknown-unknown -x c -E -dM -o - %s | FileCheck -match-full-lines %s | ||
|
||
// CHECK: #define __GCC_ASM_FLAG_OUTPUTS__ 1 |
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -2837,8 +2837,37 @@ void SelectionDAGBuilder::visitBr(const BranchInst &I) { | |
Opcode = Instruction::And; | ||
else if (match(BOp, m_LogicalOr(m_Value(BOp0), m_Value(BOp1)))) | ||
Opcode = Instruction::Or; | ||
|
||
if (Opcode && | ||
auto &TLI = DAG.getTargetLoweringInfo(); | ||
bool BrSrlIPM = FuncInfo.MF->getTarget().getTargetTriple().getArch() == | ||
Triple::ArchType::systemz; | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. We really shouldn't have triple checks here in common SelectionDAG code. If absolutely needed, this should be abstracted behind appropriate target callbacks. However, I'm wondering if this is indeed needed at all at this point. Can't we just let common code canonicalize the sequence of if statements into a switch statement, and then recognize the particular form of switch (with input coming from an |
||
// For Flag output operands SRL/IPM sequence, we want to avoid | ||
// creating switch case, as it creates Basic Block and inhibits | ||
// optimization in DAGCombiner for flag output operands. | ||
const auto checkSRLIPM = [&TLI](const SDValue &Op) { | ||
if (!Op.getNumOperands()) | ||
return false; | ||
SDValue OpVal = Op.getOperand(0); | ||
SDNode *N = OpVal.getNode(); | ||
if (N && N->getOpcode() == ISD::SRL) | ||
return TLI.canLowerSRL_IPM_Switch(OpVal); | ||
else if (N && OpVal.getNumOperands() && | ||
(N->getOpcode() == ISD::AND || N->getOpcode() == ISD::OR)) { | ||
SDValue OpVal1 = OpVal.getOperand(0); | ||
SDNode *N1 = OpVal1.getNode(); | ||
if (N1 && N1->getOpcode() == ISD::SRL) | ||
return TLI.canLowerSRL_IPM_Switch(OpVal1); | ||
} | ||
return false; | ||
}; | ||
if (BrSrlIPM) { | ||
if (NodeMap.count(BOp0) && NodeMap[BOp0].getNode()) { | ||
BrSrlIPM &= checkSRLIPM(getValue(BOp0)); | ||
if (NodeMap.count(BOp1) && NodeMap[BOp1].getNode()) | ||
BrSrlIPM &= checkSRLIPM(getValue(BOp1)); | ||
} else | ||
BrSrlIPM = false; | ||
} | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. This is already better than a target check, but there's still a whole lot of implicitly target-specific code here. There really shouldn't be a generic callback Note that I see there's already a target hook to guide whether or not this transformation should be performed: the |
||
if (Opcode && !BrSrlIPM && | ||
!(match(BOp0, m_ExtractElt(m_Value(Vec), m_Value())) && | ||
match(BOp1, m_ExtractElt(m_Specific(Vec), m_Value()))) && | ||
!shouldKeepJumpConditionsTogether( | ||
|
@@ -12112,18 +12141,41 @@ void SelectionDAGBuilder::lowerWorkItem(SwitchWorkListItem W, Value *Cond, | |
const APInt &SmallValue = Small.Low->getValue(); | ||
const APInt &BigValue = Big.Low->getValue(); | ||
|
||
// Creating switch cases optimizing tranformation inhibits DAGCombiner | ||
// for SystemZ for flag output operands. DAGCobiner compute cumulative | ||
// CCMask for flag output operands SRL/IPM sequence, we want to avoid | ||
// creating switch case, as it creates Basic Block and inhibits | ||
// optimization in DAGCombiner for flag output operands. | ||
// cases like (CC == 0) || (CC == 2) || (CC == 3), or | ||
// (CC == 0) || (CC == 1) ^ (CC == 3), there could potentially be | ||
// more cases like this. | ||
const TargetLowering &TLI = DAG.getTargetLoweringInfo(); | ||
bool IsSrlIPM = false; | ||
if (NodeMap.count(Cond) && NodeMap[Cond].getNode()) | ||
IsSrlIPM = CurMF->getTarget().getTargetTriple().getArch() == | ||
Triple::ArchType::systemz && | ||
TLI.canLowerSRL_IPM_Switch(getValue(Cond)); | ||
// Check that there is only one bit different. | ||
APInt CommonBit = BigValue ^ SmallValue; | ||
if (CommonBit.isPowerOf2()) { | ||
if (CommonBit.isPowerOf2() || IsSrlIPM) { | ||
SDValue CondLHS = getValue(Cond); | ||
EVT VT = CondLHS.getValueType(); | ||
SDLoc DL = getCurSDLoc(); | ||
|
||
SDValue Or = DAG.getNode(ISD::OR, DL, VT, CondLHS, | ||
DAG.getConstant(CommonBit, DL, VT)); | ||
SDValue Cond = DAG.getSetCC( | ||
DL, MVT::i1, Or, DAG.getConstant(BigValue | SmallValue, DL, VT), | ||
ISD::SETEQ); | ||
SDValue Cond; | ||
|
||
if (CommonBit.isPowerOf2()) { | ||
SDValue Or = DAG.getNode(ISD::OR, DL, VT, CondLHS, | ||
DAG.getConstant(CommonBit, DL, VT)); | ||
Cond = DAG.getSetCC(DL, MVT::i1, Or, | ||
DAG.getConstant(BigValue | SmallValue, DL, VT), | ||
ISD::SETEQ); | ||
} else if (IsSrlIPM && BigValue == 3 && SmallValue == 0) { | ||
SDValue SetCC = | ||
DAG.getSetCC(DL, MVT::i32, CondLHS, | ||
DAG.getConstant(SmallValue, DL, VT), ISD::SETEQ); | ||
Cond = DAG.getSetCC(DL, MVT::i32, SetCC, | ||
DAG.getConstant(BigValue, DL, VT), ISD::SETEQ); | ||
} | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Again, this very SystemZ specific optimization shouldn't really be here. Doesn't this just revert the decision to introduce a switch statement that was made above? Could this not handled either by the |
||
|
||
// Update successor info. | ||
// Both Small and Big will jump to Small.BB, so we sum up the | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This shouldn't be here.