Added zext flag in IR named was_sext for the target
RISC-V that converts back sext instructions from zext instructions
that were originated as a sext instruction. This conversion
happens in the backend of RISC-V in RISCVCodeGenPrepare.
Details
- Reviewers
nikic craig.topper
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rG LLVM Github Monorepo
Event Timeline
Missing LangRef change.
was_sext is the wrong name for this flag, because it's not meaningful in terms of operational semantics of the IR. You'll want to call this something like nneg or nonneg, with the semantics that if the argument is negative, the return value is poison. This allows refining zext nneg %x to sext %x.
Generally I'm on board with adding such a flag.
Please upload patches with full context using -U99999 per the directions here https://llvm.org/docs/Phabricator.html#requesting-a-review-via-the-web-interface
llvm/lib/AsmParser/LLParser.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
3747 | if (Opc == Instruction::ZExt && EatIfPresent(lltok::kw_was_sext)) WasSext = true; | |
6355 | Unrelated change? | |
6382 | Can this be moved into parseCast? | |
llvm/lib/Bitcode/Reader/BitcodeReader.cpp | ||
1472 | This TODO needs to removed, or needs to say what needs to be done | |
4874 | Is this reformatting existing code that you aren't changing? | |
4893 | TODO has no description | |
4921 | Join conditions with && to reduce nesting | |
llvm/lib/Bitcode/Writer/BitcodeWriter.cpp | ||
105 | This TODO is in the middle of a sentence | |
llvm/lib/IR/Instructions.cpp | ||
3761 ↗ | (On Diff #544796) | This is adding curly braces to code you didn't otherwise change. Please remove |
Changed flag's name from `was_sext to nneg`. Updated the LangRef and all the required changes such as Instruction.h Operator.h.
This is still missing LangRef changes.
I think you should also drop everything here that is related to supporting zext constant expressions. These will be removed in the near future, and I don't think it makes sense to add nneg support for them just to drop them again.
llvm/lib/Bitcode/flags.ll | ||
---|---|---|
31 | This test should not be in the lib/ directory. | |
llvm/lib/IR/Instructions.cpp | ||
3768 ↗ | (On Diff #554043) | Spurious white space changes. |
"
Semantics:
The zext fills the high order bits of the value with zero bits until it reaches the size of the destination type, ty2.
When zero extending from i1, the result will always be either 0 or 1.
The nneg flag means the value to be zero extended is non negative.
So we can safely convert the zext to a sext.
This applies only for the RISC-V target because sext i32 to i64 can be a no op for RV64
and it is always cheaper than performing a zero extension .
Example:
%X = zext i32 257 to i64 ; yields i64:257
%Y = zext i1 true to i32 ; yields i32:1
%Z = zext <2 x i16> <i16 8, i16 7> to <2 x i32> ; yields <i32 8, i32 7>
%H = zext nneg 8 i32 to i64 ; yields to i64:8
llvm/lib/AsmParser/LLParser.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
6355 | Yes, I reverted it back as it was. | |
6382 | It can be moved but I wrote this, as all the other flags was written in a similar way. Also if we move it to parseCast we must refactor parseCast with one additional optional argument. | |
llvm/lib/Bitcode/Reader/BitcodeReader.cpp | ||
4874 | Probably |
I don't think we need to mention RISC-V. I've seen cases where the middle end needs this information. This issue https://discourse.llvm.org/t/aggressive-conversion-of-sext-to-zext-blocks-indvarsimplify/61561 was independent of RISC-V.
Semantics:
The zext fills the high order bits of the value with zero bits until it reaches the size of the destination type, ty2.
When zero extending from i1, the result will always be either 0 or 1.
The nneg flag means the value to be zero extended is non negative.
So we can safely convert the zext to a sext.
Example:
%X = zext i32 257 to i64 ; yields i64:257
%Y = zext i1 true to i32 ; yields i32:1
%Z = zext <2 x i16> <i16 8, i16 7> to <2 x i32> ; yields <i32 8, i32 7>
%H = zext nneg 8 i32 to i64 ; yields to i64:8
I don't see tests for constantexpr.
llvm/include/llvm/IR/Instruction.h | ||
---|---|---|
372 | "sext flag" -> "nneg flag" | |
383 | "Determine whether the nneg flag is set." | |
llvm/lib/AsmParser/LLLexer.cpp | ||
567 | I think this list should try to be the same order as LLVMToken.h where you have this after inbounds | |
llvm/lib/AsmParser/LLParser.cpp | ||
6381 | We can just do return parseCast I think? | |
7181 | Space after if | |
llvm/lib/Bitcode/Reader/BitcodeReader.cpp | ||
3216 | Don't change the formatting of this line | |
3224 | Extra space after && | |
4889 | Don't change the formatting of this line | |
llvm/lib/IR/Instruction.cpp | ||
385 | Space after if | |
414 | space after if | |
llvm/test/Bitcode/constantsTest.3.2.ll | ||
124 | The only change to this file seems to be adding a new line. I don't think we should touch this file in this patch. |
Semantics:
The zext fills the high order bits of the value with zero bits until it reaches the size of the destination type, ty2.
When zero extending from i1, the result will always be either 0 or 1.
The nneg flag means the value to be zero extended is non negative.
So we can safely convert the zext to a sext.
This applies only for the RISC-V target because sext i32 to i64 can be a no op for RV64
and it is always cheaper than performing a zero extension .
Example:
%X = zext i32 257 to i64 ; yields i64:257
%Y = zext i1 true to i32 ; yields i32:1
%Z = zext <2 x i16> <i16 8, i16 7> to <2 x i32> ; yields <i32 8, i32 7>
%H = zext nneg 8 i32 to i64 ; yields to i64:8
ConstantExpr tests::
define i64 @zext_plain_ce() {
; CHECK: ret zext nneg i32 (i32 ptrtoint (ptr @addr to i32), i32 130) to i64
ret zext nneg i32 (i32 ptrtoint (ptr @addr to i32), i32 130) to i64
}
The semantics need to be a change to llvm/docs/LangRef.rst in this patch, not a comment.
As I said before, I don't think it makes sense to add nneg support to zext constant expressions, which are slated for removal.
llvm/include/llvm/IR/Operator.h | ||
---|---|---|
349 | Missing comment text? | |
llvm/lib/Bitcode/Writer/BitcodeWriter.cpp | ||
105 | Not done? |
Refactoring NonNeg Operator and removing all zext constant expressions leads to 3 test failing due to the inheritance graph:
NonNeg Operator is Operator and Operator is User and ConstantExpr is a Constant and Constant is User too.
So the User class must be refactored too to not support ConstantExpr in general.
Yes, Operator is for cases that support Instruction and ConstantExpr. You would change NonNegOperator -> NonNegInstruction/NonNegInst (if you need it at all, it would only have the classof check for zext and nothing else).
Yes I have done that and still the 3 tests fail, inheriting from User directly, instead of Operator.
and I get --> " decltype(auto) llvm::cast(From*) [with To = llvm::NonNegOperator; From = const llvm::Operator]: Assertion `isa<To>(Val) && "cast<Ty>() argument of incompatible type!"' failed. "
Basically I used operator to set/get the flag similarly to all the other flags but now those support ConstantExpr.
and I think that's the problem.
llvm/lib/Bitcode/Reader/BitcodeReader.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
4874 | This should be reformatted back the way it was. |
I've put up https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67982 based on this code, without the constant expression support and some cleanup.
"sext flag" -> "nneg flag"