LGTM but make sure it passes recently updated lit tests.

In D67596#1673947, @arsenm wrote:

In D67596#1673887, @alex-t wrote:

I also have a question: why do you need to remove that predicates at all? Does it mean that to enable GlobalISel you'd need to remove all the divergent predicates stuff?

The patterns are rejected for having custom predicate code. We don't need it as a standard pattern checks the register banks, which is what we really want. I think the cleanest compatibility solution would be to use divergence to guide register class selection, and somehow add the equivalent checks in the DAG patterns. Defining the equivalent GlobalISel pattern as always true would probably work, although leave a lot of clutter in the matching tables

I also have a question: why do you need to remove that predicates at all? Does it mean that to enable GlobalISel you'd need to remove all the divergent predicates stuff?

Changed according the reviewer's request + some refactoring done.

Wave32/Wave64 cases

Empty block handling added

Commit was reverted due to the EXPENSIVE_CHECKS failure.
Issue fixed

In D67101#1665906, @RKSimon wrote:

@alex-t This is failing on EXPENSIVE_CHECKS builds: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/llvm-clang-x86_64-expensive-checks-win/builds/19594/steps/test-check-all/logs/stdio

Changed according to the reviewers requests. Tests added.

In D67101#1655941, @lebedev.ri wrote:

Would be good to have test coverage either in the same patch or have dependent patch explicitly marked as such.

Suggested nits added.

According the reviewer's request the check for implicit defs has been added.
New helper functions in MachineInstr.h are necessary because the current interface like MachineInstr::getNumExplicitDefs returns just the MCInstDesc::NumDefs for non variadic opcodes.

Just ping! Does anybody has any objections?

isLCSSAForm check is under EXPENSIVE_CHECKS

In D63489#1548954, @lebedev.ri wrote:

In D63489#1548945, @arsenm wrote:

In D63489#1548938, @alex-t wrote:

In D63489#1548851, @arsenm wrote:

In D63489#1548844, @lebedev.ri wrote:

In D63489#1548837, @alex-t wrote:

In D63489#1548470, @lebedev.ri wrote:

In D63489#1548451, @alex-t wrote:

In D63489#1548288, @lebedev.ri wrote:

This causes generation of incorrect code in AMDGPU backend.

This sounds like some other check is missing elsewhere?
What happens if you feed it such an ir as-if after this transform, but manually written?
("that will result in broken asm/crashes" is hopefully not the answer)

That being said, why is LCSSAPass not sufficient?
It's already supposed to undo transforms like this.

It will result in syntactically correct asm and no crashes. In runtime we'll get incorrect result though :)
Adding LCSSA pass again later on is difficult in the sense of the pass dependencies.
So, it's better to fix the explicit bug in SimplifyPHI....

Aha, so it's not -instsimplify pass itself, but how it's used during transition into backend.

1. You certainly don't want to make this blacklist unconditional, it should still run when the -instsimplify pass itself is run. (+instsimplify test)
2. How does this affect other targets (backends)? Does this need some TLI hook?

In fact I still insist that this is a bug in -instsimplify pass.
The algorithm is written in such a way that it always expect more then one input in PHI node.
That means that the person who's written it had no intention to really remove the LCSSA PHIs but was just unaware of their existence!
It is not correct to remove LCSSA in similar manner as PHI nodes with equal inputs are removed.
So, any other backend should not suffer from this change. It is not about the convenience for AMDGPU backend but about correctness.
Could you provide an example where LCSSA PHIs are added and then intentionally removed?

Can you please specify why this transform is invalid from LLVM IR point of view? https://godbolt.org/z/D8gKNc
In endloop BB, which has a single predecessor BB - loop, %counter.lcssa value can only be %counter value.

Nothing is invalid from the IR point of view. This is all a kludge to get divergence information into SelectionDAG. There needs to be an IR instruction at the use point for the DAG to query the divergence analysis

That means I have to change all the function declarations on the way to be able to pass TTI to check if it is the "divergent" target (

I don't think InstSimplify should depend on target information

Can't you just schedule an LCSSAPass somewhere late in pipeline, before SelectionDAG and after early-cse?

In D63489#1548945, @arsenm wrote:

In D63489#1548938, @alex-t wrote:

In D63489#1548851, @arsenm wrote:

In D63489#1548844, @lebedev.ri wrote:

In D63489#1548837, @alex-t wrote:

In D63489#1548470, @lebedev.ri wrote:

In D63489#1548451, @alex-t wrote:

In D63489#1548288, @lebedev.ri wrote:

This causes generation of incorrect code in AMDGPU backend.

This sounds like some other check is missing elsewhere?
What happens if you feed it such an ir as-if after this transform, but manually written?
("that will result in broken asm/crashes" is hopefully not the answer)

That being said, why is LCSSAPass not sufficient?
It's already supposed to undo transforms like this.

It will result in syntactically correct asm and no crashes. In runtime we'll get incorrect result though :)
Adding LCSSA pass again later on is difficult in the sense of the pass dependencies.
So, it's better to fix the explicit bug in SimplifyPHI....

Aha, so it's not -instsimplify pass itself, but how it's used during transition into backend.

1. You certainly don't want to make this blacklist unconditional, it should still run when the -instsimplify pass itself is run. (+instsimplify test)
2. How does this affect other targets (backends)? Does this need some TLI hook?

In fact I still insist that this is a bug in -instsimplify pass.
The algorithm is written in such a way that it always expect more then one input in PHI node.
That means that the person who's written it had no intention to really remove the LCSSA PHIs but was just unaware of their existence!
It is not correct to remove LCSSA in similar manner as PHI nodes with equal inputs are removed.
So, any other backend should not suffer from this change. It is not about the convenience for AMDGPU backend but about correctness.
Could you provide an example where LCSSA PHIs are added and then intentionally removed?

Can you please specify why this transform is invalid from LLVM IR point of view? https://godbolt.org/z/D8gKNc
In endloop BB, which has a single predecessor BB - loop, %counter.lcssa value can only be %counter value.

Nothing is invalid from the IR point of view. This is all a kludge to get divergence information into SelectionDAG. There needs to be an IR instruction at the use point for the DAG to query the divergence analysis

That means I have to change all the function declarations on the way to be able to pass TTI to check if it is the "divergent" target (

I don't think InstSimplify should depend on target information

In D63489#1548851, @arsenm wrote:

In D63489#1548844, @lebedev.ri wrote:

In D63489#1548837, @alex-t wrote:

In D63489#1548470, @lebedev.ri wrote:

In D63489#1548451, @alex-t wrote:

In D63489#1548288, @lebedev.ri wrote:

This causes generation of incorrect code in AMDGPU backend.

This sounds like some other check is missing elsewhere?
What happens if you feed it such an ir as-if after this transform, but manually written?
("that will result in broken asm/crashes" is hopefully not the answer)

That being said, why is LCSSAPass not sufficient?
It's already supposed to undo transforms like this.

It will result in syntactically correct asm and no crashes. In runtime we'll get incorrect result though :)
Adding LCSSA pass again later on is difficult in the sense of the pass dependencies.
So, it's better to fix the explicit bug in SimplifyPHI....

Aha, so it's not -instsimplify pass itself, but how it's used during transition into backend.

1. You certainly don't want to make this blacklist unconditional, it should still run when the -instsimplify pass itself is run. (+instsimplify test)
2. How does this affect other targets (backends)? Does this need some TLI hook?

In fact I still insist that this is a bug in -instsimplify pass.
The algorithm is written in such a way that it always expect more then one input in PHI node.
That means that the person who's written it had no intention to really remove the LCSSA PHIs but was just unaware of their existence!
It is not correct to remove LCSSA in similar manner as PHI nodes with equal inputs are removed.
So, any other backend should not suffer from this change. It is not about the convenience for AMDGPU backend but about correctness.
Could you provide an example where LCSSA PHIs are added and then intentionally removed?

Can you please specify why this transform is invalid from LLVM IR point of view? https://godbolt.org/z/D8gKNc
In endloop BB, which has a single predecessor BB - loop, %counter.lcssa value can only be %counter value.

Nothing is invalid from the IR point of view. This is all a kludge to get divergence information into SelectionDAG. There needs to be an IR instruction at the use point for the DAG to query the divergence analysis

In D63489#1548844, @lebedev.ri wrote:

In D63489#1548837, @alex-t wrote:

In D63489#1548470, @lebedev.ri wrote:

In D63489#1548451, @alex-t wrote:

In D63489#1548288, @lebedev.ri wrote:

This causes generation of incorrect code in AMDGPU backend.

This sounds like some other check is missing elsewhere?
What happens if you feed it such an ir as-if after this transform, but manually written?
("that will result in broken asm/crashes" is hopefully not the answer)

That being said, why is LCSSAPass not sufficient?
It's already supposed to undo transforms like this.

It will result in syntactically correct asm and no crashes. In runtime we'll get incorrect result though :)
Adding LCSSA pass again later on is difficult in the sense of the pass dependencies.
So, it's better to fix the explicit bug in SimplifyPHI....

Aha, so it's not -instsimplify pass itself, but how it's used during transition into backend.

1. You certainly don't want to make this blacklist unconditional, it should still run when the -instsimplify pass itself is run. (+instsimplify test)
2. How does this affect other targets (backends)? Does this need some TLI hook?

In fact I still insist that this is a bug in -instsimplify pass.
The algorithm is written in such a way that it always expect more then one input in PHI node.
That means that the person who's written it had no intention to really remove the LCSSA PHIs but was just unaware of their existence!
It is not correct to remove LCSSA in similar manner as PHI nodes with equal inputs are removed.
So, any other backend should not suffer from this change. It is not about the convenience for AMDGPU backend but about correctness.
Could you provide an example where LCSSA PHIs are added and then intentionally removed?

Can you please specify why this transform is invalid from LLVM IR point of view? https://godbolt.org/z/D8gKNc
In endloop BB, which has a single predecessor BB - loop, %counter.lcssa value can only be %counter value.

In D63489#1548470, @lebedev.ri wrote:

In D63489#1548451, @alex-t wrote:

In D63489#1548288, @lebedev.ri wrote:

This causes generation of incorrect code in AMDGPU backend.

This sounds like some other check is missing elsewhere?
What happens if you feed it such an ir as-if after this transform, but manually written?
("that will result in broken asm/crashes" is hopefully not the answer)

That being said, why is LCSSAPass not sufficient?
It's already supposed to undo transforms like this.

It will result in syntactically correct asm and no crashes. In runtime we'll get incorrect result though :)
Adding LCSSA pass again later on is difficult in the sense of the pass dependencies.
So, it's better to fix the explicit bug in SimplifyPHI....

Aha, so it's not -instsimplify pass itself, but how it's used during transition into backend.

1. You certainly don't want to make this blacklist unconditional, it should still run when the -instsimplify pass itself is run. (+instsimplify test)
2. How does this affect other targets (backends)? Does this need some TLI hook?

In D63489#1548720, @rampitec wrote:

In D63489#1548470, @lebedev.ri wrote:

In D63489#1548451, @alex-t wrote:

In D63489#1548288, @lebedev.ri wrote:

This causes generation of incorrect code in AMDGPU backend.

This sounds like some other check is missing elsewhere?
What happens if you feed it such an ir as-if after this transform, but manually written?
("that will result in broken asm/crashes" is hopefully not the answer)

That being said, why is LCSSAPass not sufficient?
It's already supposed to undo transforms like this.

It will result in syntactically correct asm and no crashes. In runtime we'll get incorrect result though :)
Adding LCSSA pass again later on is difficult in the sense of the pass dependencies.
So, it's better to fix the explicit bug in SimplifyPHI....

Aha, so it's not -instsimplify pass itself, but how it's used during transition into backend.

1. You certainly don't want to make this blacklist unconditional, it should still run when the -instsimplify pass itself is run. (+instsimplify test)
2. How does this affect other targets (backends)? Does this need some TLI hook?

The other condition should probably be TTI.hasBranchDivergence().

In D63489#1548288, @lebedev.ri wrote:

This causes generation of incorrect code in AMDGPU backend.

This sounds like some other check is missing elsewhere?
What happens if you feed it such an ir as-if after this transform, but manually written?
("that will result in broken asm/crashes" is hopefully not the answer)

That being said, why is LCSSAPass not sufficient?
It's already supposed to undo transforms like this.

MIR test added

In D59990#1530704, @hakzsam wrote:

In D59990#1530603, @alex-t wrote:

In D59990#1530511, @hakzsam wrote:

I have updated the change ttps://reviews.llvm.org/D62614 this Sunday.
The new one takes completely different approach. I'd appreciate very much If you could try it.

D62614 doesn't fix the issue.

Okay. I'm about to start partial revert of the change.
Could you please provide me test cases so that I can check if my further fixes help.

See below the good and bad outputs for one CTS failure:

GOOD: https://hastebin.com/muwuwivofu
BAD: https://hastebin.com/gofawejoku

Thanks again for looking into this.

Note that this change also breaks https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=110811

In D59990#1530511, @hakzsam wrote:

I have updated the change ttps://reviews.llvm.org/D62614 this Sunday.
The new one takes completely different approach. I'd appreciate very much If you could try it.

D62614 doesn't fix the issue.

In D59990#1527631, @nhaehnle wrote:

A number of Mesa piglit tests are also affected at least on Bonaire (but it seems to not be GPU-specific, I haven't had a chance to look at it further).

- bin/ext_transform_feedback-order elements triangles
- bin/ext_transform_feedback-order elements points
- bin/ext_transform_feedback-order elements lines
- bin/ext_transform_feedback-order arrays triangles>
- bin/ext_transform_feedback-order arrays points
- bin/ext_transform_feedback-order arrays lines
- arb_clear_buffer_object-formats (96-bit clears)

It's unclear whether the regression is caused by this particular commit or by the subsequent ASAN fix.

In D59990#1527276, @hakzsam wrote:

In D59990#1527275, @hakzsam wrote:

In D59990#1521409, @alex-t wrote:

In D59990#1517891, @hakzsam wrote:

Hi there,

This change introduces a regression with RADV, all dEQP-VK.subgroups.arithmetic.framebuffer.* are failing now.
Can someone look into this?
Thanks!

I have a patch that fixes the issue in another test suite. Could you please suggest how to check if it also fixes RADV?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D62614

This patch fixes the CTS failures on my side. I have just tried the latest version.

Err, only a subset is fixed actually.

Alternative fix.

In D62614#1525150, @rampitec wrote:

In D62614#1524852, @alex-t wrote:

In D62614#1524597, @nhaehnle wrote:

See D60834 for what I think is the right direction to fix this.

Once again:

LCSSA is not sufficient for the following reason:
Since definition is considered uniform it is selected to SALU and produces SGPR.
The value in this SGPR is correct for all laves leave in loop body.
LCSSA PHI node that inserted in loop exit block will turn into the copy from SGPR to VGPR – this is incorrect.

Why isn't sgpr to vgpr copy correct? If it is done still inside the loop it is suboptimal but correct. When done outside of the loop it is incorrect, that's true.

added the Divergent Analysis test update that was missed

I don't agree that the enhancement the definition of the "divergence" to the scope is correct way at all.
literally, the value is uniform if all threads observe same value. Nothing about exec mask, lanes or GPU :)
All threads in our case are all executing loop body. That's it.

In D62614#1524597, @nhaehnle wrote:

See D60834 for what I think is the right direction to fix this.

Added comments describing the reason for the change.

In D59990#1517891, @hakzsam wrote:

Hi there,

This change introduces a regression with RADV, all dEQP-VK.subgroups.arithmetic.framebuffer.* are failing now.
Can someone look into this?
Thanks!

In D59990#1517891, @hakzsam wrote:

Hi there,

This change introduces a regression with RADV, all dEQP-VK.subgroups.arithmetic.framebuffer.* are failing now.
Can someone look into this?
Thanks!

rebased

more formatting + new test updated

formatting etc

Added fixes after extended testing. Also GFX10 related update.

LGTM

In D59990#1457613, @nhaehnle wrote:

In D59990#1455330, @efriedma wrote:

Adding llvm-commits to the CC. Please be more careful about that in the future... see http://llvm.org/docs/Phabricator.html

changed according the reviewer request

It seems like we have to further develop this approach to deal with the scalar comparison instructions.
For instance, S_CMP_* does not produce any result but implicitly defines SCC.
Thus, InstrEmitter will insert the copies all the time.
Since DAG operator SETCC produces i1 value there will be the SCC to VReg_1 copies.
I not trying to invent a method to lower that copies.
First issue: in case all the uses are not divergent I don't need the V_CND_MASK -1,0 -> V_CMP_NE 0 pair
I need S_CSELECT -1, 0 immediately after the definition (to save SCC) and S_CMP_NE 0 just before use to rematerialize SCC
Second issue: I only need to save/restore if there are SCC defs in between.
So, we need to take into account not divergent flow as well.

LGTM