Justin Holewinski
2014-May-01 12:10 UTC
[LLVMdev] Adding an intrinsic that requires a constant parameter
My understanding of intrinsics in LLVM is that an optimization pass cannot touch an intrinsic unless it (1) is specifically programmed to have knowledge of the intrinsic, or (2) uses only declared properties of the intrinsic, like IntrNoMem. So, for example, a pass may move an unknown intrinsic around memory ops if its defined IntrNoMem, but it cannot hoist constants for arbitrary intrinsics. Is this correct? I can't find this codified anywhere in the documentation. The context for this question is adding an intrinsic that requires a constant parameter. There is no way to define this property in the tablegen description currently. I want to verify that if I add such an intrinsic, it would be illegal for any existing optimization pass to hoist the constant parameter. For example, if I add a target intrinsic llvm.foo that takes two parameters: i32 and i1, where the i1 parameter must be a constant (same as llvm.cttz), I want to verify that the following optimization is illegal without having to change any LLVM passes: Input: define i32 @f0(i32 %a, i1 %pred) { br i1 %pred, label %first, label %second first: %r0 = tail call i32 @llvm.foo.i32(i32 %a, i1 true) br label %end second: %r1 = tail call i32 @llvm.foo.i32(i32 %a, i1 false) br label %end end: %r = phi i32 [%r0, %first], [%r1, %second] ret i32 %r } Output: define i32 @f1(i32 %a, i1 %pred) { %r = tail call i32 @llvm.foo.i32(i32 %a, i1 %pred) ret i32 %r } -- Thanks, Justin Holewinski -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140501/16e5fbee/attachment.html>
Rafael EspĂndola
2014-May-01 14:04 UTC
[LLVMdev] Adding an intrinsic that requires a constant parameter
The shufflevector instruction has this property on the mask, not sure if the same implementation would work for an intrinsic. On 1 May 2014 08:10, Justin Holewinski <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> wrote:> My understanding of intrinsics in LLVM is that an optimization pass cannot > touch an intrinsic unless it (1) is specifically programmed to have > knowledge of the intrinsic, or (2) uses only declared properties of the > intrinsic, like IntrNoMem. So, for example, a pass may move an unknown > intrinsic around memory ops if its defined IntrNoMem, but it cannot hoist > constants for arbitrary intrinsics. Is this correct? I can't find this > codified anywhere in the documentation. > > The context for this question is adding an intrinsic that requires a > constant parameter. There is no way to define this property in the tablegen > description currently. I want to verify that if I add such an intrinsic, it > would be illegal for any existing optimization pass to hoist the constant > parameter. For example, if I add a target intrinsic llvm.foo that takes two > parameters: i32 and i1, where the i1 parameter must be a constant (same as > llvm.cttz), I want to verify that the following optimization is illegal > without having to change any LLVM passes: > > Input: > > define i32 @f0(i32 %a, i1 %pred) { > br i1 %pred, label %first, label %second > first: > %r0 = tail call i32 @llvm.foo.i32(i32 %a, i1 true) > br label %end > second: > %r1 = tail call i32 @llvm.foo.i32(i32 %a, i1 false) > br label %end > end: > %r = phi i32 [%r0, %first], [%r1, %second] > ret i32 %r > } > > Output: > > define i32 @f1(i32 %a, i1 %pred) { > %r = tail call i32 @llvm.foo.i32(i32 %a, i1 %pred) > ret i32 %r > } > > -- > > Thanks, > > Justin Holewinski > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >
Reid Kleckner
2014-May-01 15:44 UTC
[LLVMdev] Adding an intrinsic that requires a constant parameter
Looks like LLVM won't tolerate that optimization. There are a bunch of intrinsics that require constant args. The verifier checks that they are constant args in Verifier::visitIntrinsicFunctionCall(), and this fails verification: define void @myprefetch(i8* nocapture %p, i32 %rw) { tail call void @llvm.prefetch(i8* %p, i32 %rw, i32 3, i32 1) ret void } We should probably note which args have to be constant in the .td file so passes can avoid breaking these intrinsics in exactly this way. On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 5:10 AM, Justin Holewinski < justin.holewinski at gmail.com> wrote:> My understanding of intrinsics in LLVM is that an optimization pass cannot > touch an intrinsic unless it (1) is specifically programmed to have > knowledge of the intrinsic, or (2) uses only declared properties of the > intrinsic, like IntrNoMem. So, for example, a pass may move an unknown > intrinsic around memory ops if its defined IntrNoMem, but it cannot hoist > constants for arbitrary intrinsics. Is this correct? I can't find this > codified anywhere in the documentation. > > The context for this question is adding an intrinsic that requires a > constant parameter. There is no way to define this property in the > tablegen description currently. I want to verify that if I add such an > intrinsic, it would be illegal for any existing optimization pass to hoist > the constant parameter. For example, if I add a target intrinsic llvm.foo > that takes two parameters: i32 and i1, where the i1 parameter must be a > constant (same as llvm.cttz), I want to verify that the following > optimization is illegal without having to change any LLVM passes: > > Input: > > define i32 @f0(i32 %a, i1 %pred) { > br i1 %pred, label %first, label %second > first: > %r0 = tail call i32 @llvm.foo.i32(i32 %a, i1 true) > br label %end > second: > %r1 = tail call i32 @llvm.foo.i32(i32 %a, i1 false) > br label %end > end: > %r = phi i32 [%r0, %first], [%r1, %second] > ret i32 %r > } > > Output: > > define i32 @f1(i32 %a, i1 %pred) { > %r = tail call i32 @llvm.foo.i32(i32 %a, i1 %pred) > ret i32 %r > } > > -- > > Thanks, > > Justin Holewinski > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140501/81f9cb97/attachment.html>
Justin Holewinski
2014-May-01 16:18 UTC
[LLVMdev] Adding an intrinsic that requires a constant parameter
Right, that's where I'm going with this. Many intrinsics already make use of constant-only parameters, but I'm wondering if there are any documented requirements for passes that make sure this works, or if we have just been getting lucky with the current intrinsics. On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote:> Looks like LLVM won't tolerate that optimization. There are a bunch of > intrinsics that require constant args. The verifier checks that they are > constant args in Verifier::visitIntrinsicFunctionCall(), and this fails > verification: > > define void @myprefetch(i8* nocapture %p, i32 %rw) { > tail call void @llvm.prefetch(i8* %p, i32 %rw, i32 3, i32 1) > ret void > } > > We should probably note which args have to be constant in the .td file so > passes can avoid breaking these intrinsics in exactly this way. > > > On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 5:10 AM, Justin Holewinski < > justin.holewinski at gmail.com> wrote: > >> My understanding of intrinsics in LLVM is that an optimization pass >> cannot touch an intrinsic unless it (1) is specifically programmed to have >> knowledge of the intrinsic, or (2) uses only declared properties of the >> intrinsic, like IntrNoMem. So, for example, a pass may move an unknown >> intrinsic around memory ops if its defined IntrNoMem, but it cannot hoist >> constants for arbitrary intrinsics. Is this correct? I can't find this >> codified anywhere in the documentation. >> >> The context for this question is adding an intrinsic that requires a >> constant parameter. There is no way to define this property in the >> tablegen description currently. I want to verify that if I add such an >> intrinsic, it would be illegal for any existing optimization pass to hoist >> the constant parameter. For example, if I add a target intrinsic llvm.foo >> that takes two parameters: i32 and i1, where the i1 parameter must be a >> constant (same as llvm.cttz), I want to verify that the following >> optimization is illegal without having to change any LLVM passes: >> >> Input: >> >> define i32 @f0(i32 %a, i1 %pred) { >> br i1 %pred, label %first, label %second >> first: >> %r0 = tail call i32 @llvm.foo.i32(i32 %a, i1 true) >> br label %end >> second: >> %r1 = tail call i32 @llvm.foo.i32(i32 %a, i1 false) >> br label %end >> end: >> %r = phi i32 [%r0, %first], [%r1, %second] >> ret i32 %r >> } >> >> Output: >> >> define i32 @f1(i32 %a, i1 %pred) { >> %r = tail call i32 @llvm.foo.i32(i32 %a, i1 %pred) >> ret i32 %r >> } >> >> -- >> >> Thanks, >> >> Justin Holewinski >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >> >> >-- Thanks, Justin Holewinski -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140501/08285a1e/attachment.html>
Maybe Matching Threads
- [LLVMdev] [NVPTX] Backend failure in LegalizeDAG due to unimplemented expand in target lowering
- [LLVMdev] [NVPTX] Backend failure in LegalizeDAG due to unimplemented expand in target lowering
- RFC: Add guard intrinsics to LLVM
- [LLVMdev] [NVPTX] Backend failure in LegalizeDAG due to unimplemented expand in target lowering
- [LLVMdev] [INCOMPLETE] [GC] Support wrapping vararg functions in statepoint