llvm dev - Feb 2013 - [LLVMdev] keeping instructions in order and hidden dependencies

AFAIK, You have two choices: use a pseudo that is lowered into separate
instructions later as part of asm emission, or use MI bundles. The former is
generally what existing targets use for this sort of thing, but perhaps the
second would work better for you.

Cameron

On Feb 16, 2013, at 8:37 PM, Reed Kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote:
> Some of my pseudos do conditional branch .+4 and such.
> 
> I don't want the instruction scheduler to get creative on me.
> 
> On 02/16/2013 07:20 PM, reed kotler wrote:
>> I have some pseudos that I am expanding in the Mips 16 port. Currently
>> they are blasted in one chunk as a multi line instruction sequence but
I
>> am changing the code now to expand them
>> after register allocation.
>> 
>> They are essentially macros and I need to make sure, at this time at
>> least, that the individual instructions are not reordered or moved
around.
>> 
>> There are dependencies sometimes between the instructions that I'm
not
>> sure how to tell LLVM about.
>> 
>> For example, this first one is a two instruction macro where register
T8
>> is implicitly set by the first instruction and used by the second
>> instruction.
>> 
>> T8 is not a mips16 registers but some instructions use it implicitly
and
>> it can function as
>> a condition code register.
>> 
>> In this first case, I do a compare (CMP) and the result sets T8 and
then
>> the branch instruction following it uses this as if it were a condition
>> code register.
>> 
>> Maybe I can just set first instruction as defining T8 and the second as
>> using it for the last time.
>> 
>> Without this expansion, this is not an issue.
>> 
>> At some future time it might be possible to reuse this condition
>> register later and move it around but for now I'm not needing that
>> optimization.
>> 
>> Tia.
>> 
>> Reed
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

One of my reasons for lowering things early is that I need to get an 
accurate count of the size of things.

Some of the pseudos even have instructions like compare immediate, which 
in Mips 16 has two forms depending on the magnitude of the immediate field.

Though I suppose it's possible to leave things as a pseudo and calculate 
their size, though I'm not sure where I could store the result.

I need the size for long/short jump optimization, constant islands, 
delay slot filling (on mips16 you can't put a 32 bit instruction in a 
delay slot) and other things.

I have not used bundles.

Is the idea that I could create a bundle and insert the instructions in 
the bundle and then they are guaranteed to stay together?

On 02/16/2013 09:09 PM, Cameron Zwarich wrote:
> AFAIK, You have two choices: use a pseudo that is lowered into separate
instructions later as part of asm emission, or use MI bundles. The former is
generally what existing targets use for this sort of thing, but perhaps the
second would work better for you.
>
> Cameron
>
> On Feb 16, 2013, at 8:37 PM, Reed Kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote:
>
>> Some of my pseudos do conditional branch .+4 and such.
>>
>> I don't want the instruction scheduler to get creative on me.
>>
>> On 02/16/2013 07:20 PM, reed kotler wrote:
>>> I have some pseudos that I am expanding in the Mips 16 port.
Currently
>>> they are blasted in one chunk as a multi line instruction sequence
but I
>>> am changing the code now to expand them
>>> after register allocation.
>>>
>>> They are essentially macros and I need to make sure, at this time
at
>>> least, that the individual instructions are not reordered or moved
around.
>>>
>>> There are dependencies sometimes between the instructions that
I'm not
>>> sure how to tell LLVM about.
>>>
>>> For example, this first one is a two instruction macro where
register T8
>>> is implicitly set by the first instruction and used by the second
>>> instruction.
>>>
>>> T8 is not a mips16 registers but some instructions use it
implicitly and
>>> it can function as
>>> a condition code register.
>>>
>>> In this first case, I do a compare (CMP) and the result sets T8 and
then
>>> the branch instruction following it uses this as if it were a
condition
>>> code register.
>>>
>>> Maybe I can just set first instruction as defining T8 and the
second as
>>> using it for the last time.
>>>
>>> Without this expansion, this is not an issue.
>>>
>>> At some future time it might be possible to reuse this condition
>>> register later and move it around but for now I'm not needing
that
>>> optimization.
>>>
>>> Tia.
>>>
>>> Reed
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

At some future time I will need to teach LLVM more about what I'm doing 
so that it can schedule the individual instructions but now I'm mostly
concerned about not having bugs from subtle optimization issues.

On 02/16/2013 09:20 PM, Reed Kotler wrote:
> One of my reasons for lowering things early is that I need to get an
> accurate count of the size of things.
>
> Some of the pseudos even have instructions like compare immediate, which
> in Mips 16 has two forms depending on the magnitude of the immediate field.
>
> Though I suppose it's possible to leave things as a pseudo and
calculate
> their size, though I'm not sure where I could store the result.
>
> I need the size for long/short jump optimization, constant islands,
> delay slot filling (on mips16 you can't put a 32 bit instruction in a
> delay slot) and other things.
>
> I have not used bundles.
>
> Is the idea that I could create a bundle and insert the instructions in
> the bundle and then they are guaranteed to stay together?
>
> On 02/16/2013 09:09 PM, Cameron Zwarich wrote:
>> AFAIK, You have two choices: use a pseudo that is lowered into
>> separate instructions later as part of asm emission, or use MI
>> bundles. The former is generally what existing targets use for this
>> sort of thing, but perhaps the second would work better for you.
>>
>> Cameron
>>
>> On Feb 16, 2013, at 8:37 PM, Reed Kotler <rkotler at mips.com>
wrote:
>>
>>> Some of my pseudos do conditional branch .+4 and such.
>>>
>>> I don't want the instruction scheduler to get creative on me.
>>>
>>> On 02/16/2013 07:20 PM, reed kotler wrote:
>>>> I have some pseudos that I am expanding in the Mips 16 port.
Currently
>>>> they are blasted in one chunk as a multi line instruction
sequence
>>>> but I
>>>> am changing the code now to expand them
>>>> after register allocation.
>>>>
>>>> They are essentially macros and I need to make sure, at this
time at
>>>> least, that the individual instructions are not reordered or
moved
>>>> around.
>>>>
>>>> There are dependencies sometimes between the instructions that
I'm not
>>>> sure how to tell LLVM about.
>>>>
>>>> For example, this first one is a two instruction macro where
>>>> register T8
>>>> is implicitly set by the first instruction and used by the
second
>>>> instruction.
>>>>
>>>> T8 is not a mips16 registers but some instructions use it
implicitly
>>>> and
>>>> it can function as
>>>> a condition code register.
>>>>
>>>> In this first case, I do a compare (CMP) and the result sets T8
and
>>>> then
>>>> the branch instruction following it uses this as if it were a
condition
>>>> code register.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe I can just set first instruction as defining T8 and the
second as
>>>> using it for the last time.
>>>>
>>>> Without this expansion, this is not an issue.
>>>>
>>>> At some future time it might be possible to reuse this
condition
>>>> register later and move it around but for now I'm not
needing that
>>>> optimization.
>>>>
>>>> Tia.
>>>>
>>>> Reed
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

You are trying to do a few different things here, and a uniform solution may not
work for all of them. For a fixed instruction sequence, e.g. a special kind of
move-and-branch sequence used for tail calls, you probably want a pseudo. If you
are trying to combine arbitrary instructions together, e.g. Thumb IT blocks, you
probably want to use bundles, even if the sequences are a fixed length. I think
bundles might work well for your delay slots. Bundles will force instructions to
stay together in sequence, and there is really no other way to do this with
arbitrary instructions.

If you have a compare instruction that generates a flag and a branch instruction
that uses it, you want to model this dependency with an unallocatable physical
register, e.g. the CPSR on ARM:

// Condition code registers.
def CCR : RegisterClass<"ARM", [i32], 32, (add CPSR)> {
  let CopyCost = -1;  // Don't allow copying of status registers.
  let isAllocatable = 0;
}

This will require you to mark defs and uses (and kills), but if you're using
it purely inside of a single basic block you won't have to worry about it
too much. If you have instructions that may only generate this dependency in
certain circumstances, you can use implicit def/use operands, which can be added
to any MachineInstr even if the register is not part of the normal def/use list.
If you need the instructions to always be adjacent and not simply satisfy a
physical register dependency, then you'll have to use pseudos or bundles.

For long/short jump optimizations you probably want to optimistically assume
that all jumps are short and add a pass to relax them prior to asm emission, but
I don't know the exact constraints of MIPS. On ARM this is done as part of
the constant island pass.

I CC'd Jim because he's the expert on the ARM constant island formation
and he can give you some advice from experience there. I have always avoided
that code. :-)

Cameron

On Feb 16, 2013, at 9:20 PM, Reed Kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote:
> One of my reasons for lowering things early is that I need to get an
accurate count of the size of things.
> 
> Some of the pseudos even have instructions like compare immediate, which in
Mips 16 has two forms depending on the magnitude of the immediate field.
> 
> Though I suppose it's possible to leave things as a pseudo and
calculate their size, though I'm not sure where I could store the result.
> 
> I need the size for long/short jump optimization, constant islands, delay
slot filling (on mips16 you can't put a 32 bit instruction in a delay slot)
and other things.
> 
> I have not used bundles.
> 
> Is the idea that I could create a bundle and insert the instructions in the
bundle and then they are guaranteed to stay together?
> 
> On 02/16/2013 09:09 PM, Cameron Zwarich wrote:
>> AFAIK, You have two choices: use a pseudo that is lowered into separate
instructions later as part of asm emission, or use MI bundles. The former is
generally what existing targets use for this sort of thing, but perhaps the
second would work better for you.
>> 
>> Cameron
>> 
>> On Feb 16, 2013, at 8:37 PM, Reed Kotler <rkotler at mips.com>
wrote:
>> 
>>> Some of my pseudos do conditional branch .+4 and such.
>>> 
>>> I don't want the instruction scheduler to get creative on me.
>>> 
>>> On 02/16/2013 07:20 PM, reed kotler wrote:
>>>> I have some pseudos that I am expanding in the Mips 16 port.
Currently
>>>> they are blasted in one chunk as a multi line instruction
sequence but I
>>>> am changing the code now to expand them
>>>> after register allocation.
>>>> 
>>>> They are essentially macros and I need to make sure, at this
time at
>>>> least, that the individual instructions are not reordered or
moved around.
>>>> 
>>>> There are dependencies sometimes between the instructions that
I'm not
>>>> sure how to tell LLVM about.
>>>> 
>>>> For example, this first one is a two instruction macro where
register T8
>>>> is implicitly set by the first instruction and used by the
second
>>>> instruction.
>>>> 
>>>> T8 is not a mips16 registers but some instructions use it
implicitly and
>>>> it can function as
>>>> a condition code register.
>>>> 
>>>> In this first case, I do a compare (CMP) and the result sets T8
and then
>>>> the branch instruction following it uses this as if it were a
condition
>>>> code register.
>>>> 
>>>> Maybe I can just set first instruction as defining T8 and the
second as
>>>> using it for the last time.
>>>> 
>>>> Without this expansion, this is not an issue.
>>>> 
>>>> At some future time it might be possible to reuse this
condition
>>>> register later and move it around but for now I'm not
needing that
>>>> optimization.
>>>> 
>>>> Tia.
>>>> 
>>>> Reed
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> 
>