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).
The current implementation of skip insertion (SIInsertSkip) makes it a
mandatory pass required for correctness. Initially, the idea was to
have an optional pass. This patch inserts the s_cbranch_execz upfront
during SILowerControlFlow to skip over the sections of code when no
lanes are active. Later, SIRemoveShortExecBranches removes the skips
for short branches, unless there is a sideeffect and the skip branch is
really necessary.
This new pass will replace the handling of skip insertion in the
existing SIInsertSkip Pass.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68092
The current implementation of skip insertion (SIInsertSkip) makes it a
mandatory pass required for correctness. Initially, the idea was to
have an optional pass. This patch inserts the s_cbranch_execz upfront
during SILowerControlFlow to skip over the sections of code when no
lanes are active. Later, SIRemoveShortExecBranches removes the skips
for short branches, unless there is a sideeffect and the skip branch is
really necessary.
This new pass will replace the handling of skip insertion in the
existing SIInsertSkip Pass.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68092
SIInsertSkips really doesn't understand the control flow, and makes
very stupid assumptions about the block layout. This was able to get
away with not skipping return blocks, since usually after
structurization there is only one placed at the end of the
function. Tail duplication can break this assumption.
llvm-svn: 362754
Matt Arsenault