llvm dev - Mar 2021 - SDAG: Type legalization woes (context insensitivity)

Is v64i1 not a legal type for Hexagon? What assertion are you hitting?

~Craig


On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 11:30 AM Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Summary: some types need more contextual information to properly legalize
> than what TLI queries give.
>
> Example: consider v32i1:
> 1.  v32i1 = compare v32i32, v32i32    ; all good
> 2.  v32i1 = compare v32i16, v32i16    ; problem: v32i16 not legal, but
> v32i1 is
>
>   The type v32i1 is legal because there it can be represented in a
> register and can be a result of a legal comparison of legally-typed
> vectors.  But it can also be a result of comparing illegally-typed vectors,
> which causes a problem.
>   The type legalization first looks at the value type, sees v32i1, takes
> note that it's legal.  Then, for the second case, it will attempt to
> legalize the operand types, but that action would also cause the result
> type to change (e.g. widen everything: v32i16->v64i16, v32i1->v64i1),
> hitting an assertion.
>
> I'm seeing this issue on Hexagon, but it seems to be fairly generic in
its
> nature.  Has anyone else experienced this?
>
> I want to fix this somehow.  My current idea is to simply allow a known
> legal type to be replaced with another legal type, but there may be
> different approaches, like using SDValue in the TLI.whatAbouThisType
family.
>
> Does anybody have concerns, thoughts?
>
> --
> Krzysztof Parzyszek  kparzysz at quicinc.com   AI tools development
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20210322/4b5f14fc/attachment.html>

We’re hitting the first one in this function (I’m trying to get a testcase that
would reproduce this crash):

void DAGTypeLegalizer::SetWidenedVector(SDValue Op, SDValue Result) {
  assert(Result.getValueType() =        
TLI.getTypeToTransformTo(*DAG.getContext(), Op.getValueType()) &&
         "Invalid type for widened vector");
  AnalyzeNewValue(Result);

  auto &OpIdEntry = WidenedVectors[getTableId(Op)];
  assert((OpIdEntry == 0) && "Node already widened!");
  OpIdEntry = getTableId(Result);
}


Yes, v64i1 is legal, but it fails the condition ‘getTypeToTransformTo(v32i1) ==
v64i1’.


--
Krzysztof Parzyszek  kparzysz at quicinc.com<mailto:kparzysz at
quicinc.com>   AI tools development

From: Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 1:55 PM
To: Krzysztof Parzyszek <kparzysz at quicinc.com>
Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
Subject: [EXT] Re: [llvm-dev] SDAG: Type legalization woes (context
insensitivity)

Is v64i1 not a legal type for Hexagon? What assertion are you hitting?

~Craig


On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 11:30 AM Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev <llvm-dev
at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
Summary: some types need more contextual information to properly legalize than
what TLI queries give.

Example: consider v32i1:
1.  v32i1 = compare v32i32, v32i32    ; all good
2.  v32i1 = compare v32i16, v32i16    ; problem: v32i16 not legal, but v32i1 is

  The type v32i1 is legal because there it can be represented in a register and
can be a result of a legal comparison of legally-typed vectors.  But it can also
be a result of comparing illegally-typed vectors, which causes a problem.
  The type legalization first looks at the value type, sees v32i1, takes note
that it's legal.  Then, for the second case, it will attempt to legalize the
operand types, but that action would also cause the result type to change (e.g.
widen everything: v32i16->v64i16, v32i1->v64i1), hitting an assertion.

I'm seeing this issue on Hexagon, but it seems to be fairly generic in its
nature.  Has anyone else experienced this?

I want to fix this somehow.  My current idea is to simply allow a known legal
type to be replaced with another legal type, but there may be different
approaches, like using SDValue in the TLI.whatAbouThisType family.

Does anybody have concerns, thoughts?

--
Krzysztof Parzyszek  kparzysz at quicinc.com<mailto:kparzysz at
quicinc.com>   AI tools development

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20210322/d91bcfe2/attachment.html>