[LLVMdev] FP Intrinsics
morten at hue.no
Thu Mar 17 00:59:28 PST 2005
Chris Lattner wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Morten Ofstad wrote:
>> I am trying to make the FP intrinsics (abs, sin, cos, sqrt) I've added
>> work with the X86ISelPattern, but I'm having some difficulties
>> understanding what needs to be done.
> Cool. Here are a couple of requests:
> 1. I don't think we need an "llvm.abs" intrinsic at the llvm level. This
> can be modeled as a pair of setcc/select instructions.
OK, I'm not exactly sure where and how to do this matching of setcc/select - can you give me some pointers?
> 2. My objection to llvm.abs does not apply to the FP_ABS
> node you added: it is fine. Additionally, the target-independent
> selection dag machinery should be the one that notices the relevant
> setcc/select pairs at the llvm level to fabricate the FP_ABS node.
> 3. On X86 at least, sin and cos are not defined over the full numeric
> range. These instructions are useful for applications like yours, and
> situations where a flag like "-ffast-math" has been provided. Because
> of this, please name the intrinsics and nodes sin_approx and
> cos_approx. I don't think that sqrt on the X86 has this limitation,
> so its intrinsic can be named just "llvm.sqrt".
I think it makes more sense to have the intrinsics as is, but do the code generation in the X86 target different
depending on some command line flag. For the pattern ISel, this simply amounts to registering the FP_SIN and FP_COS
as nodes which need to be expanded (to calls) if not fast-math is set... What do you think about this approach?
> 4. Don't forget a doc patch to docs/LangRef.html :-)
>> I assume I have to add new nodetypes for the FP instructions to
>> SelectionDAGNodes.h, and make nodes for these in
>> SelectionDAGLowering::visitCall when I find the intrinsic...
OK, I will.
>> -- for me it would make most sense to lower the intrinsic to a call if
>> it's not supported. However I notice that for other intrinsics (memcpy
>> etc.) this is done in LegalizeDAG where the node is expanded to a call
>> if it's not directly supported for the target.
> Yup, this is what we want to do. There are two places to implement
> this: LegalizeDAG for the SelectionDAG isels, and
> lib/CodeGen/IntrinsicLowering.cpp for other isels.
Why not do it in SelectionDAGLowering::visitCall? The way I have implemented it now, this calls
TLI.hasNativeSupportForOperation to see if it (for example FP_SQRT) is a legal operation on the target, and if not it
sets RenameFn to "sin" and simply goes ahead with generating the call. This is a lot less code than doing it in
LegalizeDAG, and also more efficient since it's not first lowered to an instruction and then expanded to a call.
More information about the llvm-dev