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

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

Hi Duncan,

Sorry I don't understand your point, could you please explain a little bit
more?
Why i1 should be declared illegal? Operations on byte-wide types like
char or bool are pretty legal, according to PTX spec:

"Registers may be typed (signed integer, unsigned integer, floating
point, predicate) or untyped. Register size is restricted; aside from
predicate registers which are 1-bit, scalar registers have a width of
8-, 16-, 32-, or 64-bits, and vector registers have a width of 16-,
32-, 64-, or 128-bits. The most common use of 8-bit registers is with
ld, st, and cvt instructions, or as elements of vector tuples."

Thanks,
- D.

2012/6/30 Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr>:
> 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
>
>
>

Okay, few issues here:

First, i1 is used in the NVPTX back-end to map to the predicate (.pred)
type.  We definitely do not want to declare this type as illegal.  The real
issue is lack of complete support for this type.  The PTX language places
restrictions on what can be done with .pred registers, and it looks like
the failure is here:

kernelgen_hostcall.exit228:                       ; preds = %while.cond.i226
  store i1 false, i1 addrspace(1)* undef, align 8

Ignoring for a second that you're storing to an undefined address (???),
the back-end does not yet handle up-casting an i1 to an appropriate type
for storage.  The memory space is not bit-addressable, so a direct store of
an i1 does not make sense.  In the short term, I would recommend that you
manually zext from/to i8 and load/store those.

On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Dmitry N. Mikushin <maemarcus at
gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi Duncan,
>
> Sorry I don't understand your point, could you please explain a little
bit
> more?
> Why i1 should be declared illegal? Operations on byte-wide types like
> char or bool are pretty legal, according to PTX spec:
>
> "Registers may be typed (signed integer, unsigned integer, floating
> point, predicate) or untyped. Register size is restricted; aside from
> predicate registers which are 1-bit, scalar registers have a width of
> 8-, 16-, 32-, or 64-bits, and vector registers have a width of 16-,
> 32-, 64-, or 128-bits. The most common use of 8-bit registers is with
> ld, st, and cvt instructions, or as elements of vector tuples."
>
> Thanks,
> - D.
>
> 2012/6/30 Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr>:
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120702/00bedaba/attachment.html>