"Divergence driven ISel. Assign register class for cross block values
according to the divergence."
that discovered the design flaw leading to several issues that
required to be solved before.
This change reverts AMDGPU specific changes and keeps common part
unaffected.
llvm-svn: 362749
Details: To make instruction selection really divergence driven it is necessary to assign
the correct register classes to the cross block values beforehand. For the divergent targets
same value type requires different register classes dependent on the value divergence.
Reviewers: rampitec, nhaehnle
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59990
This commit was reverted because of the build failure.
The reason was mlformed patch.
Build failure fixed.
llvm-svn: 361741
Details: To make instruction selection really divergence driven it is necessary to assign
the correct register classes to the cross block values beforehand. For the divergent targets
same value type requires different register classes dependent on the value divergence.
Reviewers: rampitec, nhaehnle
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59990
llvm-svn: 361644
Summary:
Instead of writing boolean values temporarily into 32-bit VGPRs
if they are involved in PHIs or are observed from outside a loop,
we use bitwise masking operations to combine lane masks in a way
that is consistent with wave control flow.
Move SIFixSGPRCopies to before this pass, since that pass
incorrectly attempts to move SGPR phis to VGPRs.
This should recover most of the code quality that was lost with
the bug fix in "AMDGPU: Remove PHI loop condition optimization".
There are still some relevant cases where code quality could be
improved, in particular:
- We often introduce redundant masks with EXEC. Ideally, we'd
have a generic computeKnownBits-like analysis to determine
whether masks are already masked by EXEC, so we can avoid this
masking both here and when lowering uniform control flow.
- The criterion we use to determine whether a def is observed
from outside a loop is conservative: it doesn't check whether
(loop) branch conditions are uniform.
Change-Id: Ibabdb373a7510e426b90deef00f5e16c5d56e64b
Reviewers: arsenm, rampitec, tpr
Subscribers: kzhuravl, jvesely, wdng, mgorny, yaxunl, dstuttard, t-tye, eraman, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53496
llvm-svn: 345719