Indexed segment load/store intrinsics don't have SEW information encoded
in the name, so we need to get the information from its pointer type
argument at runtime.
Summary:
This patch proposes new llvm types for RISCV vector tuples represented
as `TargetExtType` which contains both `LMUL` and `NF`(num_fields)
information and keep it all the way down to `selectionDAG` to match the
corresponding `MVT`(support in the following patch).
Detail:
Currently we have built-in C types for RISCV vector tuple type, e.g.
`vint32m1x2_t`, however it's is represented as structure of scalable
vector types, i.e. `{<vscale x 2 x i32>, <vscale x 2 x i32>}`. It loses
the information for num_fields(NF) as struct is flattened during
`selectionDAG`, thus it makes it not possible to handle inline assembly
of vector tuple type, it also makes the calling convention of vector
tuple types handing not strait forward and hard to realize the
allocation code, i.e. `RVVArgDispatcher`.
The llvm IR for the example above is then represented as
`target("riscv.vector.tuple", <vscale x 8 x i8>, 2)` in which the first
type parameter is the equivalent size scalable vecotr of i8 element
type, the following integer parameter is the `NF` of the tuple.
The new RISCV specific vector insert/extract intrinsics are also added
as `llvm.riscv.vector.insert` and `llvm.riscv.vector.extract` to handle
tuple type subvector insertion/extraction since the generic ones only
operates on `VectorType` but not `TargetExtType`.
There are total of 32 llvm types added for each `VREGS * NF <= 8`, where
`VREGS` is the vector registers needed for each `LMUL` and `NF` is
num_fields.
The name of types are:
```
target("riscv.vector.tuple", <vscale x 1 x i8>, 2) // LMUL = mf8, NF = 2
target("riscv.vector.tuple", <vscale x 1 x i8>, 3) // LMUL = mf8, NF = 3
target("riscv.vector.tuple", <vscale x 1 x i8>, 4) // LMUL = mf8, NF = 4
target("riscv.vector.tuple", <vscale x 1 x i8>, 5) // LMUL = mf8, NF = 5
target("riscv.vector.tuple", <vscale x 1 x i8>, 6) // LMUL = mf8, NF = 6
target("riscv.vector.tuple", <vscale x 1 x i8>, 7) // LMUL = mf8, NF = 7
target("riscv.vector.tuple", <vscale x 1 x i8>, 8) // LMUL = mf8, NF = 8
target("riscv.vector.tuple", <vscale x 2 x i8>, 2) // LMUL = mf4, NF = 2
target("riscv.vector.tuple", <vscale x 2 x i8>, 3) // LMUL = mf4, NF = 3
target("riscv.vector.tuple", <vscale x 2 x i8>, 4) // LMUL = mf4, NF = 4
target("riscv.vector.tuple", <vscale x 2 x i8>, 5) // LMUL = mf4, NF = 5
target("riscv.vector.tuple", <vscale x 2 x i8>, 6) // LMUL = mf4, NF = 6
target("riscv.vector.tuple", <vscale x 2 x i8>, 7) // LMUL = mf4, NF = 7
target("riscv.vector.tuple", <vscale x 2 x i8>, 8) // LMUL = mf4, NF = 8
target("riscv.vector.tuple", <vscale x 4 x i8>, 2) // LMUL = mf2, NF = 2
target("riscv.vector.tuple", <vscale x 4 x i8>, 3) // LMUL = mf2, NF = 3
target("riscv.vector.tuple", <vscale x 4 x i8>, 4) // LMUL = mf2, NF = 4
target("riscv.vector.tuple", <vscale x 4 x i8>, 5) // LMUL = mf2, NF = 5
target("riscv.vector.tuple", <vscale x 4 x i8>, 6) // LMUL = mf2, NF = 6
target("riscv.vector.tuple", <vscale x 4 x i8>, 7) // LMUL = mf2, NF = 7
target("riscv.vector.tuple", <vscale x 4 x i8>, 8) // LMUL = mf2, NF = 8
target("riscv.vector.tuple", <vscale x 8 x i8>, 2) // LMUL = m1, NF = 2
target("riscv.vector.tuple", <vscale x 8 x i8>, 3) // LMUL = m1, NF = 3
target("riscv.vector.tuple", <vscale x 8 x i8>, 4) // LMUL = m1, NF = 4
target("riscv.vector.tuple", <vscale x 8 x i8>, 5) // LMUL = m1, NF = 5
target("riscv.vector.tuple", <vscale x 8 x i8>, 6) // LMUL = m1, NF = 6
target("riscv.vector.tuple", <vscale x 8 x i8>, 7) // LMUL = m1, NF = 7
target("riscv.vector.tuple", <vscale x 8 x i8>, 8) // LMUL = m1, NF = 8
target("riscv.vector.tuple", <vscale x 16 x i8>, 2) // LMUL = m2, NF = 2
target("riscv.vector.tuple", <vscale x 16 x i8>, 3) // LMUL = m2, NF = 3
target("riscv.vector.tuple", <vscale x 16 x i8>, 4) // LMUL = m2, NF = 4
target("riscv.vector.tuple", <vscale x 32 x i8>, 2) // LMUL = m4, NF = 2
```
RFC:
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-support-riscv-vector-tuple-type-in-llvm/80005
Fix https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/101526
`vf[n|w]cvt.x[|u].f` for f16 needs `zvfh` instead of `zvfhmin`, current
approach
is not able to detect this. Ultimately we need to add `zvfh` to
RequiredFeatures
to check other intrinsics instead, the type check should be done in
checkRVVTypeSupport.
It is currently not possible to use "RVV type" and "RVV intrinsics" if
the "zve32x" is not enabled globally. However in some cases we may want
to use them only in some functions, for instance:
```
#include <riscv_vector.h>
__attribute__((target("+zve32x")))
vint32m1_t rvv_add(vint32m1_t v1, vint32m1_t v2, size_t vl) {
return __riscv_vadd(v1, v2, vl);
}
int other_add(int i1, int i2) {
return i1 + i2;
}
```
, it is supposed to be compilable even the vector is not specified, e.g.
`clang -target riscv64 -march=rv64gc -S test.c`.
Builtins.def says that bfloat should be represented by the 'y'
character, not the 'b' character. The 'b' character is specified to
represent boolean. The implementation currently uses 'b' correctly for
boolean and incorrectly re-uses 'b' for bfloat.
This was not caught since no builtins are emitted in
build/tools/clang/include/clang/Basic/riscv_sifive_vector_builtins.inc.
Don't know that we can test this without creating builtins that expose
this issue, although I'm not sure we really want to do that.
The RISC-V vector crypto extensions have been ratified. This patch
updates the Clang and LLVM support for these extensions to be
non-experimental, while leaving the C intrinsics as experimental since
the C intrinsics are not yet standardized.
Co-authored-by: Brandon Wu <brandon.wu@sifive.com>
This reverts commit 8434b0b9d3. #72216
This commit broke the multiple buildbots, looks like the extension in
`NUM_PREDEF_TYPE_IDS` might have broken some inheriting usages, causing
indeterminate results for the compiler. Investigating the issue now.
The first commit extends the capacity from the compiler infrastructure,
and the second commit continues the effort in #71140 to introduce tuple
types for bfloat16.
The full multiply intrinsics are not included for EEW=64 in Zve64*.
They require the V extension to be enabled.
This commit improves diagnostic message from
```
<source>:4:10: error: call to undeclared function '__riscv_vsmul_vv_i64m1';
4 | return __riscv_vsmul_vv_i64m1(op1, op2, __RISCV_VXRM_RNU, vl);
```
to
```
test.c:5:10: error: builtin requires: v
5 | return __riscv_vsmul_vv_i64m1(op1, op2, __RISCV_VXRM_RNU, vl);
```
Reviewed By: craig.topper
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D155416
Depends on D152879.
Specification PR: riscv-non-isa/rvv-intrinsic-doc#226
This patch adds variant of `vfadd` that models the rounding mode control.
The added variant has suffix `_rm` appended to differentiate from the
existing ones that does not alternate `frm` and uses whatever is inside.
The value `7` is used to indicate no rounding mode change. Reusing the
semantic from the rounding mode encoding for scalar floating-point
instructions.
Additional data member `HasFRMRoundModeOp` is added so we can append
`_rm` suffix for the fadd variants that models rounding mode control.
Additional data member `IsRVVFixedPoint` is added so we can define
pseudo instructions with rounding mode operand and distinguish the
instructions between fixed-point and floating-point.
Reviewed By: craig.topper, kito-cheng
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D152996
This is the 2nd patch of the patch-set. For the cover letter, please
checkout D152069.
Depends on D152069.
This patch also removes redundant checks related to tuples and dedicate
the check to happen in `RVVType::verifyType`.
Reviewed By: craig.topper
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D152070
For the cover letter of this patch-set, please checkout D146872.
Depends on D146873.
This is the 3rd patch of the patch-set. This patch originates from
D99593.
Note: This patch is a proof-of-concept and will be extended to full
coverage in the future. Currently, the old non-tuple unit-stride
segment load is not removed, and only signed integer unit-strided
segment load of NF=2, EEW=32 is defined here.
When replacing the old intrinsics, the extra `IsTuple` parameter under
various places will be redundant and removed.
Authored-by: eop Chen <eop.chen@sifive.com>
Co-Authored-by: Hsiangkai Wang <kai.wang@sifive.com>
Reviewed By: craig.topper
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D147731
Coverity static analysis tool found PolicyBitMask being used
uninitialized in push_back call in RVVEmitter::createRVVIntrinsics()
but this variable has no uses.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D146847
Before this commit, vector float 16 types (e.g. `vfloat16m1_t`) of RVV
is only defined when extension `zvfh` is defined. However this
generate inaccurate diagnostics like:
```
error: unknown type name 'vfloat16m1_t'
```
This commit improves the compiler by guarding type check correctly
under semantic analysis.
Reviewed By: craig.topper
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D143657
`MaskedPrototype` is initialized and used nowhere, this is a bug. The
existing codebase works correctly upon this bug because the default
policy for unmasked intrinsics is set to TAMU.
This is something to be fixed because when the default policy is
changed to TAMA, clang will generate incorrect result.
This is the 9th commit of a patch-set that aims to change the default policy
for RVV intrinsics from TAMU to TAMA.
Please refer to the cover letter in the 1st commit (D141573) for an
overview.
Reviewed By: kito-cheng
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D141764
The extra logic here is redundant. Also sneaked in an one-liner for
emitting `IsMasked`.
This is the 8th commit of a patch-set that aims to change the default policy
for RVV intrinsics from TAMU to TAMA.
Please refer to the cover letter in the 1st commit (D141573) for an
overview.
Reviewed By: kito-cheng
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D141762
Righteously there shouldn't be any special cases here because
`HasTailPolicy` and `HasMaskPolicy` is able to express necessary cases.
This commit is a part of the step-by-step effort to remove
`Policy::Scheme::Omit`, which completely does not make sense in RVV 1.0
because an RVV instruction always executes with `vta` and `vma` set
to a certain value.
This is the 5th commit of a patch-set that aims to change the default policy
for RVV intrinsics from TAMU to TAMA.
Please refer to the cover letter in the 1st commit (D141573) for an
overview.
Reviewed By: craig.topper, kito-cheng
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D141754
This is the 1st commit of a patch-set that aims to change the default policy
for RVV intrinsics from TAMU to TAMA.
The patch-set work towards the simplification proposal [0] of Nick
Knight. After this patch-set, all intrinsics operates under a general
assumption that the policy behavior is agnostic.
You may find that most of the patches are NFC patches. They subtly remove
implicit assumptions that entangles the codebase, making the singular patch
that contains functional change clear and obvious.
In [2/15], The attribute `Policy::IsPolicyNone` may give the mis-perception
that an RVV intrinsic may operate without any policy. However this is not the
case because the policy CSR-s (`vta` and `vma`) always affect an RVV
instruction's behavior, except that some instructions have policy always set
as agnostic (e.g. instructions with a mask destination register is always
tail agnostic).
Next, to perform the change from TAMU to TAMA, we need to first remove
`Policy::PolicyType::Omit`. [4/15] ~ [12/15] removes it with NFC patches step
by step. Without the patches, directly applying [14/15] to the existing codebase
will not work because there will be complicated logics that are scattered in
places that is hard to maintain.
[1/15], [3/15] are not related to the main goal of this patch-set, they were
clean-up along the way as I was going through the codebase. [13/15] is a
clean-up that was an oversight in D141198.
Finally, [14/15] performs the functional change this patch-set aims for. The
default policy is changed from TAMU to TAMA. This affects the masked version of
the intrinsics without a policy suffix. The masked-off operand is removed. Due
to the removal, masked version of `vid` and `viota` intrinsics are no longer
available for overloading.
[15/15] is a final commit to set data members of `Policy` as constants. Through
the refactoring the class `Policy` is now correct-by-construction.
The next patch-set will be to remove redundant intrinsics with a policy suffix
`_ta` and `_tama` intrinsics are redundant and will be removed. Other policy
suffix will be renamed to adapt to the general assumption that policy is
generally agnostic.
[0] https://gist.github.com/nick-knight/6cb0b74b351a25323dfb1821d3a269b9
Pull Request: riscv-non-isa/rvv-intrinsic-doc#186
Reviewed By: craig.topper, kito-cheng
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D141573
This is the 7th commit of a patch-set that aims to remove the
IsPrototypeDefaultTU special case for the rvv-intrinsics.
This is the final commit of the patch-set. Now that no intrinsics is
using the attribute, we are safe to remove it.
Please refer to the cover letter in the 1st commit (D140895) for an
overview.
Reviewed By: craig.topper
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D140954
The naming here is strange since the value may still be updated.
Reviewed By: kito-cheng, khchen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D140389
