This patch splits backend features currently hidden behind architecture versions.
For example, currently the only way to activate complex numbers extension is targeting an v8.3 architecture, where after the patch this extension can be added separately.
This refactoring is required by the new command lines proposal:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-September/126346.html
Details
- Reviewers
DavidSpickett olista01 t.p.northover - Commits
- rG9c9067316be2: [NFC][AArch64] Split out backend features
rG1a2e0200acca: Revert rL348121 from llvm/trunk: [NFC][AArch64] Split out backend features
rG3c7d062b6bbe: [NFC][AArch64] Split out backend features
rL348493: [NFC][AArch64] Split out backend features
rL348249: Revert rL348121 from llvm/trunk: [NFC][AArch64] Split out backend features
rL348121: [NFC][AArch64] Split out backend features
Diff Detail
Event Timeline
lib/Target/AArch64/AArch64InstrInfo.td | ||
---|---|---|
46 | Can you clarify what RASv8_4 adds? Is it a 'crypto' situation where the v8_4 meaning of crypto includes the previous meaning of crypto? I'm wondering if these instructions are better described as requiring v8.4 and RAS, but I'd need to check the spec to get a better idea. If what it adds is completely separate then a new feature is probably fine. | |
2677 | Nitpick: add a blank line here. | |
test/MC/AArch64/armv8.2a-persistent-memory.s | ||
7 | (just picked a random test line, it's not important which one) What's our usual policy where an instruction could be enabled by a feature or an arch? Do we currently say: I'm not bothered about adding that information if we don't already do it, but we should follow previous precedent. | |
test/MC/AArch64/armv8.3a-signed-pointer.s | ||
142 | I think these lines are out of order, it may be ignoring this first line. (and it's the only '^' in this file so it sticks out) |
Also, is this really NFC? It should be no change to existing usage, but it adds new options so that's a change at least to llvm-mc.
lib/Target/AArch64/AArch64InstrInfo.td | ||
---|---|---|
46 | RAS v8.4 imposes less constraints of use of the barrier (ESB) use, from RAS (v8.2). It also add new features. So it is sort of a 'crypto' thing. However, I would prefer to split the feature into rasv8_4, and declare that it implies the older RAS. Keeping a distinct feature makes it easier to backported it to ARM v8.3, if ever required. | |
test/MC/AArch64/armv8.2a-persistent-memory.s | ||
7 | That comes directly from tablegen, and it goes with the name of the feature that it requires. Unfortunately, tablegen won't allow to say it requires ccpp OR armv8.x. I relied on the test of dotprod, where it says only requires dotprod. | |
test/MC/AArch64/armv8.3a-signed-pointer.s | ||
142 | Not really. I'm ensuring that in the file with the missing requirements, there is no other line between using CHECK-REQ-NEXT: CHECK-REQ: error: expected writable system register or pstate |
lib/Target/AArch64/AArch64.td | ||
---|---|---|
99 | Shouldn't this feature imply FeatureID_ISAR6_EL1 instead of FeatureID_AA64MMFR2_EL1? | |
236โ298 | Shouldn't this feature imply FeatureID_ISAR6_EL1 instead of FeatureID_AA64MMFR2_EL1? | |
245 | Shouldn't this feature imply FeatureID_ISAR6_EL1 instead of FeatureID_AA64MMFR2_EL1? IMO, the description should say Javascript or JavaScript to make it easier to grep. | |
289 | The architecture reference manual states that the ARMv8.4-TLBI feature is identified by ID_AA64ISAR0_EL1.TLB, not ID_AA64MMFR2_EL1. Is this discrepancy intentional? |
Have you discussed these feature names with the GCC devs? I know we can change the user-facing names used by clang in in TargetParser, but it's easier for us if they match.
For the feature registers (ISAR6 and MMFR2), maybe we should just make these registers always available? These registers are all defined to read as all-zeroes in older architectures, which means no features described by that register are implemented. If we continue like this then we will have to add an extra feature to pretty much every new architectural feature for the ID register.
lib/Target/AArch64/AArch64.td | ||
---|---|---|
36 | Why is this up here, and not with the other v8.2A features? |
Hi @olista01 and @bryanpkc. Thanks for the reviews.
Indeed I did not. As you said, they are not visible to the user. I'll check with the gcc devs how they have these features split and named though.
For the feature registers (ISAR6 and MMFR2), maybe we should just make these registers always available? These registers are all defined to read as all-zeroes in older architectures, which means no features described by that register are implemented. If we continue like this then we will have to add an extra feature to pretty much every new architectural feature for the ID register.
Indeed it seems the case for the ID_ISAR6_EL1 exist, so I'll just remove the constraints over it.
However, the ID_AA64MMFR2_EL1 register was added in v8.2. So I believe we should check as to warn the user if he might get undefined behavior by accessing it when not present.
lib/Target/AArch64/AArch64.td | ||
---|---|---|
36 | I have not seen any pstates and registers Features before, so I created a region apart. No technical problem with it. I'll move UAO to the other features. | |
99 | Indeed, ID_ISAR6_EL1 is used in arm32, not arm64. In arm64 it is identified using ID_AA64ISAR0_EL1, that has no constraints. So I can just remove this implication. | |
236โ298 | Yes, and same as the above, the implication is not required. | |
245 | You are right with the naming. The space in Java Script was not intentional. | |
289 | Indeed the TLB instructions features are identified by ID_AA64ISAR0_EL1[59:56]. |
Fixed:
the features implications/dependencies.
the name of the JavaScript conversion feature.
some test files.
@olista01: Most GCC devs I asked about internal feature names emphatically said that sync of internal names of features is not required. And most of the features are not even visible internally, as they are also associated with architecture reviews. So not much to do about that.
So I tried to make their description as close as possible to the reference manual, as to make it easy to grep for them. Further changes for defining arguments should be straightforward.
lib/Target/AArch64/AArch64.td | ||
---|---|---|
361 | Should FeatureWRC imply FeatureRCPC? |
However, the ID_AA64MMFR2_EL1 register was added in v8.2. So I believe we should check as to warn the user if he might get undefined behavior by accessing it when not present.
The encoding of ID_AA64MMFR2_EL1 was defined to read as zero before Armv8.2A, so using it on earlier targets isn't a problem.
lib/Target/AArch64/AArch64.td | ||
---|---|---|
83 | RAS doesn't use ID_AA64MMFR2_EL1. | |
105 | None of the existing features have the with "has" in the name (first parameter), so I think we should stick with that convention. | |
309 | This feature is in AA64MMFR2_EL1. | |
316 | This should also depend on FeatureFullFP16. | |
330 | Capitalisation: "PArtitioning" | |
337 | I think this name is too generic, trace has always been a part of the 64-bit architecture, this feature just enables some extensions to it. | |
338 | These are v8.2-A features, so they should be further up with the other v8.2A features. | |
342 | This should be "Activity", not "Active". | |
349 | This name is too generic, maybe "tlbi-range"? | |
360 | This is an extension over FeatureRCPC which adds immediate-offset versions of the instructions, so maybe FeatureRCPC/"rcpc-offset" would be better? | |
lib/Target/AArch64/AArch64InstrInfo.td | ||
2964 | This is the "Limited ordering regions" (ARMv8.1-LOR in the ArmARM) extension, not "Virtualization host extensions" (ARMv8.1-VHE). This will need a separate subtarget feature. | |
lib/Target/AArch64/AArch64SystemOperands.td | ||
82 | Why does this depend on FeatureID_AA64MMFR2_EL1? This feature is identified by AA64MMFR1_EL1, not AA64MMFR2_EL1. | |
355 | FeaturePsUAO already depends on FeatureID_AA64MMFR2_EL1, so I don't think we need to mention FeatureID_AA64MMFR2_EL1 here. | |
1308 | This one should be FeaturePA, FeaturePAN is "Privileged Access Never". |
lib/Target/AArch64/AArch64.td | ||
---|---|---|
83 | True. | |
105 | Ok. | |
316 | They FP16 instructions are dependent of FullFP16. In AArch64InstrFormats.td, you will see that such instructions depend on ComplNum, NEON and FullFP16. | |
337 | Ok, will set to TRACEv8_4. | |
349 | tlb-rmi TLB Range and Management Instructions? | |
361 | Yes it should. Indeed the naming is not the best. Will set it to RCPC_IMMO, as for "RCPC with Immediate Offset". | |
lib/Target/AArch64/AArch64InstrInfo.td | ||
2964 | Indeed the feature is there, just got it wrong here. Thanks. |
Removed the register (system operand) constraint, and associated test case.
Fixed PAN, RCPC dependencies and instructions that depend on PA, not PAN.
Changed some names to be more meaningful.
Removed the prefix "has" from the features flags.
Fixed tests
lib/Target/AArch64/AArch64.td | ||
---|---|---|
309 | Ah, we decided to remove the subtarget feature for AA64MMFR2_EL1, ignore this. |
Trying to fix a windows bot failing test, dividing the test into multiple files and using full line matching.
Why is this up here, and not with the other v8.2A features?