We previously used isel patterns for this, but that used quite
a bit of space in the isel table due to OR being associative
and commutative. It also wouldn't handle shifts/ands being in
reversed order.
This generalizes the shift/and matching from GREVI to
take the expected mask table as input so we can reuse it for
SHFLI.
There is no SHFLIW instruction, but we can promote a 32-bit
SHFLI to i64 on RV64. As long as bit 4 of the control bit isn't
set, a 64-bit SHFLI will preserve 33 sign bits if the input had
at least 33 sign bits. ComputeNumSignBits has been updated to
account for that to avoid sext.w in the tests.
Reviewed By: frasercrmck
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D96661
This stops tablegen from generating patterns with the opposite type
in the opposite HwMode. This just adds wasted bytes to the isel table.
This reduces the isel table by about 1800 bytes.
As of the current draft these are no longer being considered
for the bitmanip spec. It wasn't clear what sub extension they
belonged in in the 0.93 spec.
So remove them. They can always be added back if something changes.
Reviewed By: frasercrmck
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D96157
We need to add a mask to the shift amount for these operations
to use the FSR/FSL instructions. We were previously doing this
in isel patterns, but custom lowering will make the mask
visible to optimizations earlier.
These instructions have been removed from the 0.94 bitmanip spec.
We should focus on optimizing the codegen without using them.
Reviewed By: asb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95302
This pattern can occur when an unsigned is used to index an array
on RV64.
Reviewed By: luismarques
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95290
Similar to our free standing setcc patterns, we can use ADDI to
subtract the immediate from the other operand. Then the cmov
can check if the result is zero or non-zero.
Reviewed By: mundaym
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95169
This adds an initial set of patterns for these instructions. Its
more complicated that I would like for the sh*add.uw instructions
because there is no guaranteed canonicalization for shl/and with
constants.
Reviewed By: asb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95106
These instructions use a portion of the encodings for grevi and
gorci. The full encodings are only supported with Zbp. Note,
rev8 has a different encoding between rv32 and rv64.
Zbb is closer to being finalized that Zbp which has motivated
some decisions in this patch.
I'm treating rev8 and orc.b as separate instructions when
either Zbb or Zbp is enabled. This allows us to print to suggest
that either feature needs to be enabled to support these mnemonics.
I had tried to put HasStdExtZbbAndNotZbp on the Zbb instructions,
but that caused a diagnostic that said Zbp is required if neither
feature is enabled. We should really mention Zbb since its closer
to final.
This does require extra isel patterns for the different cases so
that bswap will always print as rev8 in assembly listing since
we can't use an InstAlias.
llvm-objdump disassembling should always pick the rev8 or orc.b
instructions. llvm-mc parsing and printing text will not convert
the grevi/gorci spellings to rev8/gorc.b. We could probably fix
this with a special case in processInstruction in the assembly
parser if it its important.
Reviewed By: asb, frasercrmck
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94944
zext.h uses the same encoding as pack rd, rs, x0 in rv32 and
packw rd, rs, x0 in rv64. Encodings without x0 as the second source
are not valid in Zbb.
I've added two new instructions with these specific encodings with
predicates that enable them when either Zbb or Zbp is enabled.
The pack spelling will only be accepted with Zbp. The disassembler
will use the zext.h instruction when either feature is enabled.
Using the pack spelling will print as pack when llvm-mc is
emitting text. We could fix this with some custom code in
processInstruction if this is important, but I'm not sure it is.
Reviewed By: asb, frasercrmck
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94818
Zext.h will need to come back to Zbb, but that only uses specific
encodings of pack.
Reviewed By: asb, frasercrmck
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94742
This didn't make it into the published 0.93 spec, but it was the
intention.
But it is in the tex source as of this commit
d172f029c0
This means zext.w now requires Zba. Not sure if we should still use
pack if Zbp is enabled and Zba isn't. I'll leave that for the future
when pack is closer to being final.
Reviewed By: asb, frasercrmck
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94736
The 0.93 spec has this implementation for add.uw
uint_xlen_t adduw(uint_xlen_t rs1, uint_xlen_t rs2) {
uint_xlen_t rs1u = (uint32_t)rs1;
return rs1u + rs2;
}
The 0.92 spec had the usages of rs1 and rs2 swapped.
Reviewed By: frasercrmck, asb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95090
Also renamed Zbe instructions to resolve name conflict even though
that change is in the 0.94 draft.
Reviewed By: asb, frasercrmck
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94653
It's not really clear in the spec that these are in Zbp now, but
that's what I've gather from previous commits to the spec. I've
file an issue to get it documented properly.
Reviewed By: asb, frasercrmck
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94652
This is the first of multiple patches to bring our 0.92
implementation up to 0.93.
Reviewed By: asb, frasercrmck
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94568
This recommits 71ed4b6ce5 with
the polarity of some of the pattern corrected.
Original commit message:
The custom expansion of select operations in the RISC-V backend
interferes with the matching of cmov instructions. Legalizing
select when the Zbt extension is available solves that problem.
Reviewed By: luismarques, craig.topper
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93767
Previously we only matched (and (shl X, C1), 0xffffffff << C1)
which matches the InstCombine canonicalization order. But its
possible to see (shl (and X, 0xffffffff), C1) if the pattern
is introduced in SelectionDAG. For example, through expansion of
a GEP.
The custom expansion of select operations in the RISC-V backend
interferes with the matching of cmov instructions. Legalizing
select when the Zbt extension is available solves that problem.
Reviewed By: lenary, craig.topper
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93767
ComplexPatterns are kind of weird, they don't call any of the predicates on their operands. And their "complexity" used for tablegen ordering purposes in the matcher table is hand specified.
This started as an attempt to just use sext_inreg + SLOIPat to implement SLOIW just to have one less Select function. The matching for the or+shl is the same as long as you know the immediate is less than 32 for SLOIW. But that didn't work out because using uimm5 with SLOIPat didn't do anything if it was a ComplexPattern.
I realized I could just use a PatFrag with the opcodes I wanted to match and an immediate predicate would then evaluate correctly. This also computes the complexity just like any other pattern does. Then I just needed to check the constraints on the immediates in the predicate. Conveniently the predicate is evaluated after the fragment has been matched. So the structure has already been checked, we just need to find the constants.
I'll note that this is unusual, I didn't find any other targets looking through operands in PatFrag predicate. There is a PredicateCodeUsesOperands feature that can be used to collect the operands into an array that is used by AMDGPU/VOP3Instructions.td. I believe that feature exists to handle commuted matching, but since the nodes here use constants, they aren't ever commuted
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91901
There is an in-progress proposal for the following pseudo-instructions
in the assembler, to complement the existing `sext.w` rv64i instruction:
- sext.b
- sext.h
- zext.b
- zext.h
- zext.w
The `.b` and `.h` variants are available with rv32i and rv64i, and `zext.w` is
only available with `rv64i`.
These are implemented primarily as pseudo-instructions, as these instructions
expand to multiple real instructions. In the case of `zext.b`, this expands to a
single rv32/64i instruction, so it is implemented with an InstAlias (like
`sext.w` is on rv64i).
The proposal is available here: https://github.com/riscv/riscv-asm-manual/pull/61
Reviewed By: asb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92793
We can use these instructions for single bit immediates that are too large for ANDI/ORI/CLRI.
The _10 test cases are to make sure that we still use ANDI/ORI/CLRI for small immediates.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92262
On the surface this would be slightly less optimal for the isel
table, but due to a tablegen issue with HW mode this ends up
generating a smaller isel table.
This enables bswap/bitreverse to combine with other GREVI patterns or each other without needing to add more special cases to the DAG combine or new DAG combines.
I've also enabled the existing GREVI combine for GREVIW so that it can pick up the i32 bswap/bitreverse on RV64 after they've been type legalized to GREVIW.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92253
Not sure why bswap was treated specially. This also applies to bitreverse
or generic grevi. We can improve this in future patches.
For now I just wanted to get the consistency and the test coverage
as I plan to make some other changes around bswap.
This is the logically correct thing to do. But it generates worse
code for i32 umin/umax on the rv64 due to type legalize requesting
zext even though the arguments are sext. Maybe we can teach type
legalizer to use sext for umin/umax for RISCV.
It's also producing possibly worse code on i64 on RV32 since we
still end up with selects that become branches. But this seems
like something we could improve in type legalization or DAG combine.
Hopefully this makes D92095 work for RISCV with Zbb.
This adds custom opcodes for FSLW/FSRW so we can type legalize
fshl/fshr without needing to match a sign_extend_inreg.
I've used the operand order from fshl/fshr to make the isel
pattern similar to the non-W form. It was also hard to decide
another order since the register instruction has the shift amount
as the second operand, but the immediate instruction has it as
the third operand.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91479
Previously we required a sra to pattern match these properly in isel. If the consumer didn't need the result sign extended we'll have an srl instead of sra and fail to match.
This patch switches to custom legalizing to GREVIW using portions of D91259.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91457
This should result in better utilization of RORIW since we
don't need to look for a SIGN_EXTEND_INREG that may not exist.
Also remove rotl/rotr isel matching to GREVI and just prefer RORI.
This is to keep consistency so we don't have to match ROLW/RORW
to GREVIW as well. I imagine RORI/RORIW performance will be the
same or better than GREVI.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91449
This moves the recognition of GREVI and GORCI from TableGen patterns
into a DAGCombine. This is done primarily to match "deeper" patterns in
the future, like (grevi (grevi x, 1) 2) -> (grevi x, 3).
TableGen is not best suited to matching patterns such as these as the compile
time of the DAG matchers quickly gets out of hand due to the expansion of
commutative permutations.
Reviewed By: craig.topper
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91259
The fshl and fshr intrinsics are defined to modulo their shift amount by the bitwidth of one of their inputs. The FSR/FSL instructions read one extra bit from the shift amount. If that bit is set the inputs are swapped. In order to preserve the semantics of the llvm intrinsics we need to make sure that the extra bit isn't set. DAG combine or instcombine may have removed any mask that was originally present.
We could be smarter here and try to use computeKnownBits to check if the bit is known zero, but wanted to start with correctness.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90905
Craig Topper