llvm dev - Jun 2012 - [LLVMdev] [NVPTX] Backend failure in LegalizeDAG due to unimplemented expand in target lowering

Hi Dmitry,
> So instead of setOperationAction(ISD::STORE, MVT::i1, Expand); one
> should probably do setOperationAction(ISD::STORE, MVT::i1, Custom);
> and implement it in NVPTXTargetLowering::LowerOperation.
>
> But this issue makes a good point about the code efficiency: I suspect
> such expansion will be very ugly in terms of performance. Probably we
> can do much better if bool would use i32 instead of i1. I don't know
> how to do that, though. Is it possible?
did you declare i1 to be an illegal type?  If so, you shouldn't get any
stores of i1 at this stage (you may get trunc stores to i1, but that is
different).

Ciao, Duncan.
>
> Anyway, if this is a defect, then it's a blocker for us, and we'd
much
> appreciate a fix.
>
> - D.
>
> 2012/6/29 Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com>:
>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Dmitry N. Mikushin <maemarcus at
gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi again,
>>>
>>> Kind people on #llvm helped me to utilize bugpoint to reduce the
>>> previously submitted test case. For record, it code be done with
the
>>> following command:
>>>
>>> $ bugpoint -llc-safe test.ll
>>>
>>> The resulting IR is attached, and it is crashing in the same way.
Is
>>> it a valid code?
>>
>> Looks like a bug in the NVPTXISelLowering.cpp: it has
>> "setOperationAction(ISD::STORE, MVT::i1, Expand);", but the
legalizer
>> doesn't know how to handle that.
>>
>> -Eli
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>

Hi Duncan,
> did you declare i1 to be an illegal type?
No. How?

2012/6/30 Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr>:
> Hi Dmitry,
>> So instead of setOperationAction(ISD::STORE, MVT::i1, Expand); one
>> should probably do setOperationAction(ISD::STORE, MVT::i1, Custom);
>> and implement it in NVPTXTargetLowering::LowerOperation.
>>
>> But this issue makes a good point about the code efficiency: I suspect
>> such expansion will be very ugly in terms of performance. Probably we
>> can do much better if bool would use i32 instead of i1. I don't
know
>> how to do that, though. Is it possible?
>
> did you declare i1 to be an illegal type?  If so, you shouldn't get any
> stores of i1 at this stage (you may get trunc stores to i1, but that is
> different).
>
> Ciao, Duncan.
>
>>
>> Anyway, if this is a defect, then it's a blocker for us, and
we'd much
>> appreciate a fix.
>>
>> - D.
>>
>> 2012/6/29 Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com>:
>>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Dmitry N. Mikushin <maemarcus
at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi again,
>>>>
>>>> Kind people on #llvm helped me to utilize bugpoint to reduce
the
>>>> previously submitted test case. For record, it code be done
with the
>>>> following command:
>>>>
>>>> $ bugpoint -llc-safe test.ll
>>>>
>>>> The resulting IR is attached, and it is crashing in the same
way. Is
>>>> it a valid code?
>>>
>>> Looks like a bug in the NVPTXISelLowering.cpp: it has
>>> "setOperationAction(ISD::STORE, MVT::i1, Expand);", but
the legalizer
>>> doesn't know how to handle that.
>>>
>>> -Eli
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

Hi Dmitry,
>> did you declare i1 to be an illegal type?
>
> No. How?
I think it will be considered illegal if you don't add it to any
register class.

Ciao, Duncan.
>
> 2012/6/30 Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr>:
>> Hi Dmitry,
>>> So instead of setOperationAction(ISD::STORE, MVT::i1, Expand); one
>>> should probably do setOperationAction(ISD::STORE, MVT::i1, Custom);
>>> and implement it in NVPTXTargetLowering::LowerOperation.
>>>
>>> But this issue makes a good point about the code efficiency: I
suspect
>>> such expansion will be very ugly in terms of performance. Probably
we
>>> can do much better if bool would use i32 instead of i1. I don't
know
>>> how to do that, though. Is it possible?
>>
>> did you declare i1 to be an illegal type?  If so, you shouldn't get
any
>> stores of i1 at this stage (you may get trunc stores to i1, but that is
>> different).
>>
>> Ciao, Duncan.
>>
>>>
>>> Anyway, if this is a defect, then it's a blocker for us, and
we'd much
>>> appreciate a fix.
>>>
>>> - D.
>>>
>>> 2012/6/29 Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com>:
>>>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Dmitry N. Mikushin
<maemarcus at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi again,
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind people on #llvm helped me to utilize bugpoint to
reduce the
>>>>> previously submitted test case. For record, it code be done
with the
>>>>> following command:
>>>>>
>>>>> $ bugpoint -llc-safe test.ll
>>>>>
>>>>> The resulting IR is attached, and it is crashing in the
same way. Is
>>>>> it a valid code?
>>>>
>>>> Looks like a bug in the NVPTXISelLowering.cpp: it has
>>>> "setOperationAction(ISD::STORE, MVT::i1, Expand);",
but the legalizer
>>>> doesn't know how to handle that.
>>>>
>>>> -Eli
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev