search for: registerbankinfo

Hi, I've spent some time playing around with GlobalISel on the AMDGPU target, and I was wondering if there is any reason to have RegisterBankInfo::getInstrAlternativeMappings() and RegisterBankInfo::getInstrMapping() as separate functions. Could we instead replace these two functions with just one: RegisterBankInfo::getInstrMappings() and then just treat the first mapping in the list as the 'default' mapping to use for 'Fast'...

Hi, I’m looking at RegBankSelect’s partially implemented support for deciding to split a value between multiple registers and I’m wondering if it’s actually intended to solve the problem I’m trying to use it for. RegisterBankInfo.h has this example mapping table: /// E.g., /// Let say we have a 32-bit add and a <2 x 32-bit> vadd. We /// can expand the /// <2 x 32-bit> add into 2 x 32-bit add. /// /// Currently the TableGen-like file would look like: /// \code /// PartialMapping[] = { /// /*32-b...

...in clang when using the __fp16 type. Here’s a reproducer: __fp16 pass_f16(__fp16 p) { return p; } $ /work/llvm/build/bin/clang --target=aarch64-arm-none-eabi -march=armv8-a -c test.c -O0 -mllvm -global-isel -mllvm -global-isel-abort=0 clang-6.0: /work/llvm/llvm/lib/CodeGen/GlobalISel/RegisterBankInfo.cpp:446: static void llvm::RegisterBankInfo::applyDefaultMapping(const llvm::RegisterBankInfo::OperandsMapper &): Assertion `OrigTy.getSizeInBits() == NewTy.getSizeInBits() && "Types with difference size cannot be handled by the default " "mapping"' failed. #0...

...t; >> __fp16 pass_f16(__fp16 p) { >> return p; >> } >> >> $ /work/llvm/build/bin/clang --target=aarch64-arm-none-eabi -march=armv8-a -c test.c -O0 -mllvm -global-isel -mllvm -global-isel-abort=0 >> clang-6.0: /work/llvm/llvm/lib/CodeGen/GlobalISel/RegisterBankInfo.cpp:446: static void llvm::RegisterBankInfo::applyDefaultMapping(const llvm::RegisterBankInfo::OperandsMapper &): Assertion `OrigTy.getSizeInBits() == NewTy.getSizeInBits() && "Types with difference size cannot be handled by the default " "mapping"' failed. >&...

...Here’s a reproducer: > > __fp16 pass_f16(__fp16 p) { > return p; > } > > $ /work/llvm/build/bin/clang --target=aarch64-arm-none-eabi -march=armv8-a -c test.c -O0 -mllvm -global-isel -mllvm -global-isel-abort=0 > clang-6.0: /work/llvm/llvm/lib/CodeGen/GlobalISel/RegisterBankInfo.cpp:446: static void llvm::RegisterBankInfo::applyDefaultMapping(const llvm::RegisterBankInfo::OperandsMapper &): Assertion `OrigTy.getSizeInBits() == NewTy.getSizeInBits() && "Types with difference size cannot be handled by the default " "mapping"' failed. >...

> On Feb 21, 2019, at 12:18 AM, Quentin Colombet via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi Matt, > >> On Feb 20, 2019, at 4:49 PM, Arsenault, Matthew via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Some operations on AMDGPU require operands which must be in a register

...pple.com>> wrote: >>> >>> I don’t get what you mean by “applyMapping to deal with it”. Won’t applyMapping will insert copies to rewrite these, hence how is this different from what the repairing code does? >>> Unless, maybe, you’re talking about the target specific RegisterBankInfo::applyMapping not RegBankSelect::applyMapping. >>> >>> If that’s the case what do you do in here that we could maybe generalize? >>> >> Sorry, I mean report them as legal so they are left as-is with no copy inserted. I can see the operand is illegal and do everyth...

...Here’s a reproducer: > > __fp16 pass_f16(__fp16 p) { > return p; > } > > $ /work/llvm/build/bin/clang --target=aarch64-arm-none-eabi -march=armv8-a -c test.c -O0 -mllvm -global-isel -mllvm -global-isel-abort=0 > clang-6.0: /work/llvm/llvm/lib/CodeGen/GlobalISel/RegisterBankInfo.cpp:446: static void llvm::RegisterBankInfo::applyDefaultMapping(const llvm::RegisterBankInfo::OperandsMapper &): Assertion `OrigTy.getSizeInBits() == NewTy.getSizeInBits() && "Types with difference size cannot be handled by the default " "mapping"' failed. >...

Hi Quentin, My only remaining concern is around ABI compatibility. The following commit seems to indicate that in the previous round of evaluation, we didn’t find an existing ABI compatibility issue: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=revision&revision=311388. I haven’t looked into the details of this issue - so maybe I’m worried over nothing? I’m wondering if since then on your side

Hi Quentin, Am 08.10.20 um 21:17 schrieb Quentin Colombet: > Hi Dominik, > >> On Oct 8, 2020, at 5:03 AM, Dominik Montada >> <dominik.montada at hightec-rt.com >> <mailto:dominik.montada at hightec-rt.com>> wrote: >> >> Hi Quentin, >> >> thanks for picking up the conversation! >> >> > I think we should step back and