[llvm] r268907 - [AArch64] Implement lowering of the X constraint on AArch64
Silviu Baranga via llvm-commits
llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
Mon May 9 04:10:44 PDT 2016
Author: sbaranga
Date: Mon May 9 06:10:44 2016
New Revision: 268907
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=268907&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64] Implement lowering of the X constraint on AArch64
Summary:
This implements the lowering of the X constraint on
AArch64.
The default behaviour of the X constraint lowering is to
restrict it to "f". This is a problem because the "f"
constraint is not implemented on AArch64 and would be too
restrictive anyway. Therefore, the AArch64 hook will
lower this to "w" (if the operand is a floating point or
vector) or "r" otherwise.
The implementation is similar with the one added for
ARM (r267411).
This is the AArch64 side of the fix for http://llvm.org/PR26493
Reviewers: rengolin
Subscribers: aemerson, rengolin, llvm-commits, t.p.northover
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19967
Added:
llvm/trunk/test/CodeGen/AArch64/inlineasm-X-allocation.ll
llvm/trunk/test/CodeGen/AArch64/inlineasm-X-constraint.ll
Modified:
llvm/trunk/lib/Target/AArch64/AArch64ISelLowering.cpp
llvm/trunk/lib/Target/AArch64/AArch64ISelLowering.h
Modified: llvm/trunk/lib/Target/AArch64/AArch64ISelLowering.cpp
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/lib/Target/AArch64/AArch64ISelLowering.cpp?rev=268907&r1=268906&r2=268907&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- llvm/trunk/lib/Target/AArch64/AArch64ISelLowering.cpp (original)
+++ llvm/trunk/lib/Target/AArch64/AArch64ISelLowering.cpp Mon May 9 06:10:44 2016
@@ -4687,6 +4687,27 @@ SDValue AArch64TargetLowering::getRsqrtE
// is prefixed by the %w modifier. Floating-point and SIMD register operands
// will be output with the v prefix unless prefixed by the %b, %h, %s, %d or
// %q modifier.
+const char *AArch64TargetLowering::LowerXConstraint(EVT ConstraintVT) const {
+ // At this point, we have to lower this constraint to something else, so we
+ // lower it to an "r" or "w". However, by doing this we will force the result
+ // to be in register, while the X constraint is much more permissive.
+ //
+ // Although we are correct (we are free to emit anything, without
+ // constraints), we might break use cases that would expect us to be more
+ // efficient and emit something else.
+ if (!Subtarget->hasFPARMv8())
+ return "r";
+
+ if (ConstraintVT.isFloatingPoint())
+ return "w";
+
+ if (ConstraintVT.isVector() &&
+ (ConstraintVT.getSizeInBits() == 64 ||
+ ConstraintVT.getSizeInBits() == 128))
+ return "w";
+
+ return "r";
+}
/// getConstraintType - Given a constraint letter, return the type of
/// constraint it is for this target.
Modified: llvm/trunk/lib/Target/AArch64/AArch64ISelLowering.h
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/lib/Target/AArch64/AArch64ISelLowering.h?rev=268907&r1=268906&r2=268907&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- llvm/trunk/lib/Target/AArch64/AArch64ISelLowering.h (original)
+++ llvm/trunk/lib/Target/AArch64/AArch64ISelLowering.h Mon May 9 06:10:44 2016
@@ -535,6 +535,9 @@ private:
std::pair<unsigned, const TargetRegisterClass *>
getRegForInlineAsmConstraint(const TargetRegisterInfo *TRI,
StringRef Constraint, MVT VT) const override;
+
+ const char *LowerXConstraint(EVT ConstraintVT) const override;
+
void LowerAsmOperandForConstraint(SDValue Op, std::string &Constraint,
std::vector<SDValue> &Ops,
SelectionDAG &DAG) const override;
Added: llvm/trunk/test/CodeGen/AArch64/inlineasm-X-allocation.ll
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/test/CodeGen/AArch64/inlineasm-X-allocation.ll?rev=268907&view=auto
==============================================================================
--- llvm/trunk/test/CodeGen/AArch64/inlineasm-X-allocation.ll (added)
+++ llvm/trunk/test/CodeGen/AArch64/inlineasm-X-allocation.ll Mon May 9 06:10:44 2016
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+; RUN: llc -mtriple=aarch64-none-eabi -mattr=-fp-armv8 %s -o - | FileCheck %s -check-prefix=nofp
+
+; In the novfp case, the compiler is forced to assign a core register,
+; even if the input is a float.
+
+; nofp-LABEL: f1
+; nofp-CHECK: ldr x0, [sp]
+
+; This can be generated by a function such as:
+; void f1(float f) {asm volatile ("ldr $0, [sp]" : : "X" (f));}
+
+define void @f1(float %f) {
+entry:
+ call void asm sideeffect "ldr $0, [sp]", "X" (float %f) nounwind
+
+ ret void
+}
Added: llvm/trunk/test/CodeGen/AArch64/inlineasm-X-constraint.ll
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/test/CodeGen/AArch64/inlineasm-X-constraint.ll?rev=268907&view=auto
==============================================================================
--- llvm/trunk/test/CodeGen/AArch64/inlineasm-X-constraint.ll (added)
+++ llvm/trunk/test/CodeGen/AArch64/inlineasm-X-constraint.ll Mon May 9 06:10:44 2016
@@ -0,0 +1,152 @@
+; RUN: llc -mtriple=aarch64-none-linux-gnu < %s -o - | FileCheck %s
+
+; The following functions test the use case where an X constraint is used to
+; add a dependency between an assembly instruction (vmsr in this case) and
+; another instruction. In each function, we use a different type for the
+; X constraint argument.
+;
+; We can something similar from the following C code:
+; double f1(double f, int pscr_value) {
+; asm volatile("msr fpsr,%1" : "=X" ((f)): "r" (pscr_value));
+; return f+f;
+; }
+
+; CHECK-LABEL: f1
+; CHECK: msr FPSR
+; CHECK: fadd d
+
+define double @f1(double %f, i32 %pscr_value) {
+entry:
+ %f.addr = alloca double, align 8
+ store double %f, double* %f.addr, align 8
+ call void asm sideeffect "msr fpsr,$1", "=*X,r"(double* nonnull %f.addr, i32 %pscr_value) nounwind
+ %0 = load double, double* %f.addr, align 8
+ %add = fadd double %0, %0
+ ret double %add
+}
+
+; int f2(int f, int pscr_value) {
+; asm volatile("msr fpsr,$1" : "=X" ((f)): "r" (pscr_value));
+; return f*f;
+; }
+
+; CHECK-LABEL: f2
+; CHECK: msr FPSR
+; CHECK: mul
+define i32 @f2(i32 %f, i32 %pscr_value) {
+entry:
+ %f.addr = alloca i32, align 4
+ store i32 %f, i32* %f.addr, align 4
+ call void asm sideeffect "msr fpsr,$1", "=*X,r"(i32* nonnull %f.addr, i32 %pscr_value) nounwind
+ %0 = load i32, i32* %f.addr, align 4
+ %mul = mul i32 %0, %0
+ ret i32 %mul
+}
+
+; typedef signed char int8_t;
+; typedef __attribute__((neon_vector_type(8))) int8_t int8x8_t;
+; void f3 (void)
+; {
+; int8x8_t vector_res_int8x8;
+; unsigned int fpscr;
+; asm volatile ("msr fpsr,$1" : "=X" ((vector_res_int8x8)) : "r" (fpscr));
+; return vector_res_int8x8 * vector_res_int8x8;
+; }
+
+; CHECK-LABEL: f3
+; CHECK: msr FPSR
+; CHECK: mul
+define <8 x i8> @f3() {
+entry:
+ %vector_res_int8x8 = alloca <8 x i8>, align 8
+ %0 = getelementptr inbounds <8 x i8>, <8 x i8>* %vector_res_int8x8, i32 0, i32 0
+ call void asm sideeffect "msr fpsr,$1", "=*X,r"(<8 x i8>* nonnull %vector_res_int8x8, i32 undef) nounwind
+ %1 = load <8 x i8>, <8 x i8>* %vector_res_int8x8, align 8
+ %mul = mul <8 x i8> %1, %1
+ ret <8 x i8> %mul
+}
+
+; We can emit integer constants.
+; We can get this from:
+; void f() {
+; int x = 2;
+; asm volatile ("add x0, x0, %0" : : "X" (x));
+; }
+;
+; CHECK-LABEL: f4
+; CHECK: add x0, x0, #2
+define void @f4() {
+entry:
+ tail call void asm sideeffect "add x0, x0, $0", "X"(i32 2)
+ ret void
+}
+
+; We can emit function labels. This is equivalent to the following C code:
+; void f(void) {
+; void (*x)(void) = &foo;
+; asm volatile ("bl %0" : : "X" (x));
+; }
+; CHECK-LABEL: f5
+; CHECK: bl f4
+define void @f5() {
+entry:
+ tail call void asm sideeffect "bl $0", "X"(void ()* nonnull @f4)
+ ret void
+}
+
+declare void @foo(...)
+
+; This tests the behavior of the X constraint when used on functions pointers,
+; or functions with a cast. In the first asm call we figure out that this
+; is a function pointer and emit the label. However, in the second asm call
+; we can't see through the bitcast and we end up having to lower this constraint
+; to something else. This is not ideal, but it is a correct behaviour according
+; to the definition of the X constraint.
+;
+; In this case (and other cases where we could have emitted something else),
+; what we're doing with the X constraint is not particularly useful either,
+; since the user could have used "r" in this situation for the same effect.
+
+; CHECK-LABEL: f6
+; CHECK: bl foo
+; CHECK: br x
+
+define void @f6() nounwind {
+entry:
+ tail call void asm sideeffect "bl $0", "X"(void (...)* @foo) nounwind
+ tail call void asm sideeffect "br $0", "X"(void (...)* bitcast (void ()* @f4 to void (...)*)) nounwind
+ ret void
+}
+
+; The following IR can be generated from C code with a function like:
+; void a() {
+; void* a = &&A;
+; asm volatile ("bl %0" : : "X" (a));
+; A:
+; return;
+; }
+;
+; Ideally this would give the block address of bb, but it requires us to see
+; through blockaddress, which we can't do at the moment. This might break some
+; existing use cases where a user would expect to get a block label and instead
+; gets the block address in a register. However, note that according to the
+; "no constraints" definition this behaviour is correct (although not very nice).
+
+; CHECK-LABEL: f7
+; CHECK: bl
+define void @f7() {
+ call void asm sideeffect "br $0", "X"( i8* blockaddress(@f7, %bb) )
+ br label %bb
+bb:
+ ret void
+}
+
+; If we use a constraint "=*X", we should get a store back to *%x (in x0).
+; CHECK-LABEL: f8
+; CHECK: add [[Dest:x[0-9]+]], x0, x0
+; CHECK: str [[Dest]], [x0]
+define void @f8(i64 *%x) {
+entry:
+ tail call void asm sideeffect "add $0, x0, x0", "=*X"(i64 *%x)
+ ret void
+}
More information about the llvm-commits
mailing list