Commit Graph

6 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Matt Arsenault 79f67cae91 AMDGPU: Rename add/sub with carry out instructions
The hardware has created a real mess in the naming for add/sub, which
have been renamed basically every generation. Switch the carry out
pseudos to have the gfx9/gfx10 names. We were using the original SI/CI
v_add_i32/v_sub_i32 names. Later targets reintroduced these names as
carryless instructions with a saturating clamp bit, which we do not
define. Do this rename so we can unambiguously add these missing
instructions.

The carry-in versions should also be renamed, but at least those had a
consistent _u32 name to begin with. The 16-bit instructions were also
renamed, but aren't ambiguous.

This does regress assembler error message quality in some cases. In
mismatched wave32/wave64 situations, this will switch from
"unsupported instruction" to "invalid operand", with the error
pointing at the wrong position. I couldn't quite follow how the
assembler selects these, but the previous behavior seemed accidental
to me. It looked like there was a partial attempt to handle this which
was never completed (i.e. there is an AMDGPUOperand::isBoolReg but it
isn't used for anything).
2020-07-16 13:16:30 -04:00
Matt Arsenault 4b4496312e AMDGPU: Start adding MODE register uses to instructions
This is the groundwork required to implement strictfp. For now, this
should be NFC for regular instructoins (many instructions just gain an
extra use of a reserved register). Regalloc won't rematerialize
instructions with reads of physical registers, but we were suffering
from that anyway with the exec reads.

Should add it for all the related FP uses (possibly with some
extras). I did not add it to either the gpr index mode instructions
(or every single VALU instruction) since it's a ridiculous feature
already modeled as an arbitrary side effect.

Also work towards marking instructions with FP exceptions. This
doesn't actually set the bit yet since this would start to change
codegen. It seems nofpexcept is currently not implied from the regular
IR FP operations. Add it to some MIR tests where I think it might
matter.
2020-05-27 14:47:00 -04:00
Stanislav Mekhanoshin a6322941ff [AMDGPU] gfx1010 VMEM and SMEM implementation
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61330

llvm-svn: 359621
2019-04-30 22:08:23 +00:00
Puyan Lotfi 43e94b15ea Followup on Proposal to move MIR physical register namespace to '$' sigil.
Discussed here:

http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-January/120320.html

In preparation for adding support for named vregs we are changing the sigil for
physical registers in MIR to '$' from '%'. This will prevent name clashes of
named physical register with named vregs.

llvm-svn: 323922
2018-01-31 22:04:26 +00:00
Justin Bogner 6c452834a1 MIR: Print the register class or bank in vreg defs
This updates the MIRPrinter to include the regclass when printing
virtual register defs, which is already valid syntax for the
parser. That is, given 64 bit %0 and %1 in a "gpr" regbank,

  %1(s64) = COPY %0(s64)

would now be written as

  %1:gpr(s64) = COPY %0(s64)

While this change alone introduces a bit of redundancy with the
registers block, it allows us to update the tests to be more concise
and understandable and brings us closer to being able to remove the
registers block completely.

Note: We generally only print the class in defs, but there is one
exception. If there are uses without any defs whatsoever, we'll print
the class on all uses. I'm not completely convinced this comes up in
meaningful machine IR, but for now the MIRParser and MachineVerifier
both accept that kind of stuff, so we don't want to have a situation
where we can print something we can't parse.

llvm-svn: 316479
2017-10-24 18:04:54 +00:00
Sam Kolton 3c4933fcc6 [AMDGPU] SDWA: add support for GFX9 in peephole pass
Summary:
Added support based on merged SDWA pseudo instructions. Now peephole allow one scalar operand, omod and clamp modifiers.
Added several subtarget features for GFX9 SDWA.
This diff also contains changes from D34026.
Depends D34026

Reviewers: vpykhtin, rampitec, arsenm

Subscribers: kzhuravl, wdng, nhaehnle, yaxunl, dstuttard, tpr, t-tye

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34241

llvm-svn: 305986
2017-06-22 06:26:41 +00:00