llvm dev - Feb 2020 - Correct modelling of instructions with types smaller than the register class

Hi Quentin, Hi Amara,

I was following your discussion on D75086 regarding declaring types as 
legal even if they are smaller than the actual register class (e.g. s16 
and gpr32). We are working on a backend which only has 32 and 64-bit 
registers and we recently had a problem regarding exactly this where we 
had to declare G_UNMERGE_VALUES and G_MERGE_VALUES with a smaller type 
of <s32 as legal, even though we don't have a register class that 
matches and instruction selection implicitly sign extends them to s32. 
The reasoning was that for example in the case of G_UNMERGE_VALUES, the 
legalizer widens the source type when widening the destination type, 
which we don't want (as the big type then doesn't fit our registers 
anymore). So we decided to only make sure that the bigger type matches a 
register class and simply allowed smaller types <s32.

What I am gathering now from this discussion is that this is basically 
an incorrect modelling and only works around another problem. Could you 
expand on this in more detail?

I was thinking about implementing some custom legalization which uses 
G_EXTRACT or shifts to get what I want, but G_EXTRACT extracts as many 
bits as the destination type, so I would end up with the same problem 
again. Shifts are also not optimal, since we have a target instruction 
available to extract n bits from a given offset. Is it valid to emit 
target instructions during legalization, i.e. before instruction 
selection, or would the best modelling be to just use the shifts and 
then use some pre-instruction-selection combiner to merge them to the 
desired target instruction?

Best regards,

Dominik

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dominik Montada                   Email: dominik.montada at hightec-rt.com
HighTec EDV-Systeme GmbH          Phone: +49 681 92613 19
Europaallee 19                    Fax:   +49-681-92613-26
D-66113 Saarbrücken               WWW: http://www.hightec-rt.com

Managing Director: Vera Strothmann
Register Court: Saarbrücken, HRB 10445, VAT ID: DE 138344222

This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If
you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender immediately
and destroy this e-mail. Any unauthorised copying, disclosure or
distribution of the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden.
---

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 5409 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200227/3af96735/attachment.bin>

Hi Dominik,

I’ll do a brief reply here and if you want more information we can talk further
:).
> On Feb 27, 2020, at 5:40 AM, Dominik Montada <dominik.montada at
hightec-rt.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Quentin, Hi Amara,
> 
> I was following your discussion on D75086 regarding declaring types as
legal even if they are smaller than the actual register class (e.g. s16 and
gpr32). We are working on a backend which only has 32 and 64-bit registers and
we recently had a problem regarding exactly this where we had to declare
G_UNMERGE_VALUES and G_MERGE_VALUES with a smaller type of <s32 as legal,
even though we don't have a register class that matches and instruction
selection implicitly sign extends them to s32. The reasoning was that for
example in the case of G_UNMERGE_VALUES, the legalizer widens the source type
when widening the destination type, which we don't want (as the big type
then doesn't fit our registers anymore). So we decided to only make sure
that the bigger type matches a register class and simply allowed smaller types
<s32.
> 
> What I am gathering now from this discussion is that this is basically an
incorrect modelling and only works around another problem. Could you expand on
this in more detail?
A few years ago we discussed the possibility and/or desire of allowing registers
to be larger than the actual legalized type or whether they should be in sync
with the legalized type.

For instance, consider
s8 = G_AND s8, s8

If your target supports `s32 = G_AND` then allowing registers to be larger than
legalized type would yield that `s8 = G_AND s8, s8` is legal (and really any
type smaller than or equal to s32 would be legal for that instruction).

Then the question was how do we represent that: the relevant bits are the low 8
bits, but the container is 32-bit.
E.g.,
s8(32) = G_AND s8(32), s8(32)

We explored that a little bit and found that it was dangerous to carry undefined
bits around (the upper 24 bits in that case) and that there was no real use case
for this. Tim (Northover) might remember more details (CC’ed).

Therefore, we decided that the legal types should exactly match what the
container (the register) will be. So in theory, if you’re not following that
model, you’re in violation of that and that’s where problems arise (and thus
D75086 to workaround them).

> 
> I was thinking about implementing some custom legalization which uses
G_EXTRACT or shifts to get what I want, but G_EXTRACT extracts as many bits as
the destination type, so I would end up with the same problem again. Shifts are
also not optimal, since we have a target instruction available to extract n bits
from a given offset. Is it valid to emit target instructions during
legalization,
Yes, that’s completely legal.

The whole idea of GISel is that the backends should be able to insert target
specific instructions whenever they want. For instance, we use that extensively
in the lowering of calls directly in the IRTranslator, i.e., at the very
beginning of GISel.
> i.e. before instruction selection, or would the best modelling be to just
use the shifts and then use some pre-instruction-selection combiner to merge
them to the desired target instruction?
That’s a question I cannot answer directly, it really depends on what are the
implementation trade-offs on your end.

I have a personal preference for generic shifts as it is possible that other
generic optimizations can get rid of them. Now, if those shifts are too
difficult to combine away or if you know that they are not optimizable anyway,
you may want to go directly with the target specific instruction.

Just keep in mind that whenever you use a target specific instruction, this is
just basically an opaque object that the generic optimizations have to deal
with.

Cheers,
-Quentin
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Dominik
> 
> -- 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dominik Montada                   Email: dominik.montada at hightec-rt.com
> HighTec EDV-Systeme GmbH          Phone: +49 681 92613 19
> Europaallee 19                    Fax:   +49-681-92613-26
> D-66113 Saarbrücken               WWW: http://www.hightec-rt.com
> 
> Managing Director: Vera Strothmann
> Register Court: Saarbrücken, HRB 10445, VAT ID: DE 138344222
> 
> This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If
> you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender immediately
> and destroy this e-mail. Any unauthorised copying, disclosure or
> distribution of the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden.
> ---
>

Hi Quentin,

thank you for the reply! This clears up a lot of the questions I was 
having. It seems like we should definitely invest some time in rewriting 
some of our legalization rules then! I also posted some questions 
further down below. I would appreciate getting your opinion on them.
> Hi Dominik,
>
> I’ll do a brief reply here and if you want more information we can talk
further :).
>
>> On Feb 27, 2020, at 5:40 AM, Dominik Montada <dominik.montada at
hightec-rt.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Quentin, Hi Amara,
>>
>> I was following your discussion on D75086 regarding declaring types as
legal even if they are smaller than the actual register class (e.g. s16 and
gpr32). We are working on a backend which only has 32 and 64-bit registers and
we recently had a problem regarding exactly this where we had to declare
G_UNMERGE_VALUES and G_MERGE_VALUES with a smaller type of <s32 as legal,
even though we don't have a register class that matches and instruction
selection implicitly sign extends them to s32. The reasoning was that for
example in the case of G_UNMERGE_VALUES, the legalizer widens the source type
when widening the destination type, which we don't want (as the big type
then doesn't fit our registers anymore). So we decided to only make sure
that the bigger type matches a register class and simply allowed smaller types
<s32.
>>
>> What I am gathering now from this discussion is that this is basically
an incorrect modelling and only works around another problem. Could you expand
on this in more detail?
> A few years ago we discussed the possibility and/or desire of allowing
registers to be larger than the actual legalized type or whether they should be
in sync with the legalized type.
>
> For instance, consider
> s8 = G_AND s8, s8
>
> If your target supports `s32 = G_AND` then allowing registers to be larger
than legalized type would yield that `s8 = G_AND s8, s8` is legal (and really
any type smaller than or equal to s32 would be legal for that instruction).
>
> Then the question was how do we represent that: the relevant bits are the
low 8 bits, but the container is 32-bit.
> E.g.,
> s8(32) = G_AND s8(32), s8(32)
>
> We explored that a little bit and found that it was dangerous to carry
undefined bits around (the upper 24 bits in that case) and that there was no
real use case for this. Tim (Northover) might remember more details (CC’ed).
>
> Therefore, we decided that the legal types should exactly match what the
container (the register) will be. So in theory, if you’re not following that
model, you’re in violation of that and that’s where problems arise (and thus
D75086 to workaround them).
This leads me to another question. What would the correct modelling look 
like for special registers that cannot be read/written, like a carry-bit 
register? The G_UADDO/UADDE instructions have an s1 carry and our target 
only supports reading this special register, but not writing to it (at 
least not directly and without doing some hacks). We found this 
especially hard to model, since GlobalISel doesn't really have a notion 
of special registers in generic instructions. In the end we went with an 
approach of defining a pseudo-register-class, which is not allocatable 
and copyable and emit a COPY to/from our physical carry bit register. 
This generally works the way we want and the COPY is eliminated. However 
it is not eliminated when using O0.

I guess this probably has something to do with not defining an extra 
register bank and teaching our regbank info that such a carry-bit vreg 
should be assigned to this regbank? Right now it is simply assigned to 
the GPR bank, which seems to be the problem for O0.

Nevertheless I still dislike this approach as I don't want to rely on 
the COPY being eliminated. I would much rather not emit it at all, but 
this obviously means that I would throw away the carry vreg of 
G_UADDO/UADDE, potentially changing the semantics of the instruction.
>
>
>> I was thinking about implementing some custom legalization which uses
G_EXTRACT or shifts to get what I want, but G_EXTRACT extracts as many bits as
the destination type, so I would end up with the same problem again. Shifts are
also not optimal, since we have a target instruction available to extract n bits
from a given offset. Is it valid to emit target instructions during
legalization,
> Yes, that’s completely legal.
>
> The whole idea of GISel is that the backends should be able to insert
target specific instructions whenever they want. For instance, we use that
extensively in the lowering of calls directly in the IRTranslator, i.e., at the
very beginning of GISel.
That is very good to know! Thanks for the clarification.
>
>> i.e. before instruction selection, or would the best modelling be to
just use the shifts and then use some pre-instruction-selection combiner to
merge them to the desired target instruction?
> That’s a question I cannot answer directly, it really depends on what are
the implementation trade-offs on your end.
>
> I have a personal preference for generic shifts as it is possible that
other generic optimizations can get rid of them. Now, if those shifts are too
difficult to combine away or if you know that they are not optimizable anyway,
you may want to go directly with the target specific instruction.
>
> Just keep in mind that whenever you use a target specific instruction, this
is just basically an opaque object that the generic optimizations have to deal
with.
Hm, good point. It should be a straightforward combine rule, so going 
with the shifts and the combiner seems to be a better approach at first 
glance. Thanks!


Best regards,

Dominik
>
> Cheers,
> -Quentin
>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Dominik
>>
>> -- 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Dominik Montada                   Email: dominik.montada at
hightec-rt.com
>> HighTec EDV-Systeme GmbH          Phone: +49 681 92613 19
>> Europaallee 19                    Fax:   +49-681-92613-26
>> D-66113 Saarbrücken               WWW: http://www.hightec-rt.com
>>
>> Managing Director: Vera Strothmann
>> Register Court: Saarbrücken, HRB 10445, VAT ID: DE 138344222
>>
>> This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If
>> you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender immediately
>> and destroy this e-mail. Any unauthorised copying, disclosure or
>> distribution of the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden.
>> ---
>>
>
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dominik Montada                   Email: dominik.montada at hightec-rt.com
HighTec EDV-Systeme GmbH          Phone: +49 681 92613 19
Europaallee 19                    Fax:   +49-681-92613-26
D-66113 Saarbrücken               WWW: http://www.hightec-rt.com

Managing Director: Vera Strothmann
Register Court: Saarbrücken, HRB 10445, VAT ID: DE 138344222

This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If
you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender immediately
and destroy this e-mail. Any unauthorised copying, disclosure or
distribution of the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden.
---

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 5409 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200302/38fa8991/attachment.bin>