llvm dev - Jun 2013 - [LLVMdev] Register Class assignment for integer and pointer types

David, thanks for your immediate response.

Since iPTR is a reserved type for tablegen internal use, can you make a
further explanation?

On the other hand, it can be simply treated as a register class assignment
problem during register allocation.
Assume both pointer and integet have a 32 bit width. backend handles it
just as to i32. When it performs register allocation, it can retrieve from
target constraint information about which register class is valid for a
operand, and this is determined by which instruction consumes the operand.

So is there a convienient way to constrain register class assignment, like
a tablegen interface or something else?

Regards.

2013/6/21 David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk>
> We also have this problem, and have added iPTR types to the back end.  Our
> pointers are actually fat pointers, so this also requires tweaking some
> optimisations (for example, things like to turn GEPs with 64-bit offsets
> into pointer-sized offsets, but our pointers are larger than any integer
> type that we support...).  Most of the changes are a bit ugly, and I'm
> loath to upstream them without an in-tree target that has these
> requirements, or they will be hard for anyone else to keep working.
>
> David
>
> On 21 Jun 2013, at 06:00, 杨勇勇 <triple.yang at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > llvm code generator lowers both integer and pointer types into
ixx(say,
> i16, i32, i64, ...). This make senses for some optimizations.
> >
> > However, integer registers and pointer registers is expilicitly
> distinguished from each other for some architectures, like TriCore,
> Blackfin, and our lab prototype dsp, which accelerates address computation
> and memory access.
> >
> > I have already read this mail thread:
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2009-May/022142.html , and I
> am wondering how is the progress about it.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > --
> > 杨勇勇 (Yang Yong-Yong)
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
>

-- 
杨勇勇 (Yang Yong-Yong)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130623/87bf7dd0/attachment.html>

Hi,

In our version of LLVM, we've added different-sized iPTR* types, so we have
an iPTR256 for our fat pointers.  This causes some problems with constraints,
because the way that TableGen resolves constraints is not expected to handle
multiple pointer types.  We've added a flag that can be set on a per-backend
basis to turn this off.

Our problem is perhaps a bit different form yours, as our pointers must be
loaded and manipulated via special instructions, they can not use the integer
instructions or registers.

David

On 23 Jun 2013, at 15:49, 杨勇勇 <triple.yang at gmail.com> wrote:
> David, thanks for your immediate response.
> 
> Since iPTR is a reserved type for tablegen internal use, can you make a
further explanation?
> 
> On the other hand, it can be simply treated as a register class assignment
problem during register allocation.
> Assume both pointer and integet have a 32 bit width. backend handles it
just as to i32. When it performs register allocation, it can retrieve from
target constraint information about which register class is valid for a operand,
and this is determined by which instruction consumes the operand.
> 
> So is there a convienient way to constrain register class assignment, like
a tablegen interface or something else?
> 
> Regards.
> 
> 2013/6/21 David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk>
> We also have this problem, and have added iPTR types to the back end.  Our
pointers are actually fat pointers, so this also requires tweaking some
optimisations (for example, things like to turn GEPs with 64-bit offsets into
pointer-sized offsets, but our pointers are larger than any integer type that we
support...).  Most of the changes are a bit ugly, and I'm loath to upstream
them without an in-tree target that has these requirements, or they will be hard
for anyone else to keep working.
> 
> David
> 
> On 21 Jun 2013, at 06:00, 杨勇勇 <triple.yang at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > llvm code generator lowers both integer and pointer types into
ixx(say, i16, i32, i64, ...). This make senses for some optimizations.
> >
> > However, integer registers and pointer registers is expilicitly
distinguished from each other for some architectures, like TriCore, Blackfin,
and our lab prototype dsp, which accelerates address computation and memory
access.
> >
> > I have already read this mail thread:
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2009-May/022142.html , and I am
wondering how is the progress about it.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > --
> > 杨勇勇 (Yang Yong-Yong)
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 杨勇勇 (Yang Yong-Yong)

2013/6/23 David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk>
> Hi,
>
> In our version of LLVM, we've added different-sized iPTR* types, so we
> have an iPTR256 for our fat pointers.  This causes some problems with
> constraints, because the way that TableGen resolves constraints is not
> expected to handle multiple pointer types.  We've added a flag that can
be
> set on a per-backend basis to turn this off.
> Our problem is perhaps a bit different form yours, as our pointers must be
> loaded and manipulated via special instructions, they can not use the
> integer instructions or registers.
>
In our processor, addresses (i.e. pointers) must be assigned to a specific
kind of registers before it can be used for memory access, which is the
common part between yours and ours.

Here are 2 possible solutions for our problem:
1. constrain instruction selection.
1.1  use    "addRegisterClass(MVT::iPTR,  XXX::PTRRegClass);" to bind
pointers and their register class.
1.2  add a pass to transform ISelDAG before instruction selection. Since we
can determine from opcodes whether an operation can only take address
registers as its input operands, we replace i32 with iPTR if so, and insert
reg-reg move operations if necessary. For example, (load reg,  addr:i32)
means we read at 'addr' to fill 'reg'. Here, we modify it to
(load reg,
 addr:iPTR).
1.3  in XXXInstrInfo.td, we give (load  reg,   iPTR:$addr) to match pattern.
1.4  and finally we "hope" default register allocator do the proper
thing.

2. add an annotation pass before register allocation.
2.1  we treat both integer and pointer as i32, and hence there is just
"addRegisterClass(MVT::i32,  XXX::I32RegClass);"
2.2  before register allocation we annote operands if they must reside in
address register.
2.3  register allocation assigns register class according to annotations
mentioned in 2.2, and perhaps a custom register allocator has to be
implemented.

Which way do you think is more feasible?

Regards.


> David
>
> On 23 Jun 2013, at 15:49, 杨勇勇 <triple.yang at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > David, thanks for your immediate response.
> >
> > Since iPTR is a reserved type for tablegen internal use, can you make
a
> further explanation?
> >
> > On the other hand, it can be simply treated as a register class
> assignment problem during register allocation.
> > Assume both pointer and integet have a 32 bit width. backend handles
it
> just as to i32. When it performs register allocation, it can retrieve from
> target constraint information about which register class is valid for a
> operand, and this is determined by which instruction consumes the operand.
> >
> > So is there a convienient way to constrain register class assignment,
> like a tablegen interface or something else?
> >
> > Regards.
> >
> > 2013/6/21 David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk>
> > We also have this problem, and have added iPTR types to the back end.
>  Our pointers are actually fat pointers, so this also requires tweaking
> some optimisations (for example, things like to turn GEPs with 64-bit
> offsets into pointer-sized offsets, but our pointers are larger than any
> integer type that we support...).  Most of the changes are a bit ugly, and
> I'm loath to upstream them without an in-tree target that has these
> requirements, or they will be hard for anyone else to keep working.
> >
> > David
> >
> > On 21 Jun 2013, at 06:00, 杨勇勇 <triple.yang at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > llvm code generator lowers both integer and pointer types into
> ixx(say, i16, i32, i64, ...). This make senses for some optimizations.
> > >
> > > However, integer registers and pointer registers is expilicitly
> distinguished from each other for some architectures, like TriCore,
> Blackfin, and our lab prototype dsp, which accelerates address computation
> and memory access.
> > >
> > > I have already read this mail thread:
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2009-May/022142.html , and I
> am wondering how is the progress about it.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > --
> > > 杨勇勇 (Yang Yong-Yong)
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 杨勇勇 (Yang Yong-Yong)
>
>

-- 
杨勇勇 (Yang Yong-Yong)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130624/718df862/attachment.html>

On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 04:57:44PM +0100, David Chisnall
wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> In our version of LLVM, we've added different-sized iPTR* types, so we
have an iPTR256 for our fat pointers.  This causes some problems with
constraints, because the way that TableGen resolves constraints is not expected
to handle multiple pointer types.  We've added a flag that can be set on a
per-backend basis to turn this off.
>
I've been following this thread, and I just wanted to mention that we
have a similar problem for newer GPU targets in the R600 backend where
pointers for image reads and writes can be 128 or 256 bits and the
largest integer type we support is i64.  Luckily, since image reads and
writes aren't something you can do in a 'normal' C or C++ program we
can
get away with using special intrinsics that return the fat pointers,
which we model using v16i8 and v32i8 types.  However, as we improve
support for OpenCL and other compute oriented programming languages,
we may need to starting using 'real' pointers.
> Our problem is perhaps a bit different form yours, as our pointers must be
loaded and manipulated via special instructions, they can not use the integer
instructions or registers.
> 
We also have a somewhat related issue with newer GPUs, that have
essentially two different instruction sets.  However, instead of having
one for pointers and one for integers like your target, we have a Vector
ALU (VALU) for manipulating integers and floats and a Scalar ALU (SALU)
for handling control flow and loading for constant memory.  There is a
lot overlap between these two instruction sets (i.e both support almost
all standard integer operations).  Since tablegen matches patterns based
on types, it is impossible for us to select from both instruction sets,
and it sounds like you will have the same problem if you treat pointers as
integer types.

To make matters worse, you can only copy registers between
the ALUs in one direction.  SALU to VALU is legal, but VALU to SALU isn't.
Currently we do post processing on the DAG after instruction selection
to help avoid these illegal copies.  I've considered also adding post
processing to help select the optimal instruction type (VALU or SALU),
but I think something like this may be easier to handle in a
pre-regalloc scheduler pass.

Not sure if any of this information will help you, but sometimes it's
just nice to know that you're not the only one with a strange target ;)

-Tom

> David
> 
> On 23 Jun 2013, at 15:49, 杨勇勇 <triple.yang at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > David, thanks for your immediate response.
> > 
> > Since iPTR is a reserved type for tablegen internal use, can you make
a further explanation?
> > 
> > On the other hand, it can be simply treated as a register class
assignment problem during register allocation.
> > Assume both pointer and integet have a 32 bit width. backend handles
it just as to i32. When it performs register allocation, it can retrieve from
target constraint information about which register class is valid for a operand,
and this is determined by which instruction consumes the operand.
> > 
> > So is there a convienient way to constrain register class assignment,
like a tablegen interface or something else?
> > 
> > Regards.
> > 
> > 2013/6/21 David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk>
> > We also have this problem, and have added iPTR types to the back end. 
Our pointers are actually fat pointers, so this also requires tweaking some
optimisations (for example, things like to turn GEPs with 64-bit offsets into
pointer-sized offsets, but our pointers are larger than any integer type that we
support...).  Most of the changes are a bit ugly, and I'm loath to upstream
them without an in-tree target that has these requirements, or they will be hard
for anyone else to keep working.
> > 
> > David
> > 
> > On 21 Jun 2013, at 06:00, 杨勇勇 <triple.yang at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > llvm code generator lowers both integer and pointer types into
ixx(say, i16, i32, i64, ...). This make senses for some optimizations.
> > >
> > > However, integer registers and pointer registers is expilicitly
distinguished from each other for some architectures, like TriCore, Blackfin,
and our lab prototype dsp, which accelerates address computation and memory
access.
> > >
> > > I have already read this mail thread:
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2009-May/022142.html , and I am
wondering how is the progress about it.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > --
> > > 杨勇勇 (Yang Yong-Yong)
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > 杨勇勇 (Yang Yong-Yong)
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev