# [LLVMdev] Predicated Vector Operations

Jeff Bush jeffbush001 at gmail.com
Thu May 9 22:16:23 PDT 2013

```Ah, I think I get it now.  This was mentioned earlier in the thread,
but it didn't click at the time. It sounds like I can do instruction
selection with a pattern like (omitting selection of the sources):

let Constraints = "\$dst = \$oldvalue" in {
(outs VectorReg:\$dst),
VectorReg:\$oldvalue),
v16i32:\$src2), v16i32:\$oldvalue))]>;
}

That's actually pretty clean.

Thanks

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Arnold Schwaighofer
<aschwaighofer at apple.com> wrote:
>
> On May 9, 2013, at 3:05 PM, Jeff Bush <jeffbush001 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 8:10 AM,  <dag at cray.com> wrote:
>>> Jeff Bush <jeffbush001 at gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> %tx = select %mask, %x, <0.0, 0.0, 0.0 ...>
>>>> %ty = select %mask, %y, <0.0, 0.0, 0.0 ...>
>>>> %sum = fadd %tx, %ty
>>>> %newvalue = select %mask, %sum, %oldvalue
>>>>
>>>> I believe the generated instructions depend on whether %oldvalue is
>>>> still live after the last instruction. If it is, you need to generate
>>>> two instructions: a copy into a new physical register then predicated
>>>> write to it.  If it is not used, then it is just a predicated write to
>>>> the same register.
>>>>
>>>>  move r1, r0
>>>>
>>>> (r0 is now %oldvalue and r1 is %newvalue)
>>>>
>>>> vs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (r0 was %oldvalue and is now %newvalue)
>>>
>>> I'm assuming some parts of %oldvalue are still used.  The masked fadd
>>> could preserve them for false values of the mask, depending on how
>>> masking was defined.  Therefore, there's no need for a register copy.
>>> If the masked operation does not preserve the old values in r0, then we
>>> do need a register copy.
>>>
>>> Preserving old values does complicate things for SSA, as you note.
>>>
>>>>> The bottom line is that it is probably easier to set this up before LLVM
>>>>> IR goes into SSA form.
>>>>
>>>> That makes sense, but it's unclear to me how you would preserve that
>>>> information after going into SSA form.
>>>
>>> I should think the semantics of select would handle that.  After a
>>> select all vector elements of the result are defined.  There is no
>>> preservation of old values.  There cannot be, by definition of SSA.
>>>
>>>> It seems to me that these are not really LLVM issues as much as the
>>>> fact that SSA doesn't cleanly map to predicated instructions.
>>>
>>> It entirely depends on how the predication is defined to work.
>>
>> Good point.  I was thinking of it narrowly as preserving the old value
>> in the register.  I guess I'd amend my previous statement to say that
>> it actually does map just fine to SSA, but instruction selection
>> becomes more complex.
>>
>> It sounds like the current LLVM instruction selection algorithm can't
>> really handle the use case I described cleanly (generating predicated
>> arithmetic instructions that preserve the old register value).  Is
>> that a fair statement?
>
>
> I don’t think this is a fair statement. Tied register operands should handle this use case just fine. This problem is similar to that of two-address constraints. Two address instructions work as follows. When we match an instruction we “tie” input and output registers.
>
>
> x = add i32 y, z
>
> for x86 we generate the following machine ir instruction during ISel:
>
> vr0<def, tied1> = ADD32rr vr1<use, tied0>, vr2<use>
>
> Once we go out of SSA during CodeGen we have to replace the two address constraint by copies:
>
> vr0 = vr1
> vr0 = ADD32rr vr0, vr2
>
> Coalescing and allocation will then take care of removing unnecessary copies. I think that predicate instructions would be handled similar (for the sake of making the example shorted I replaced your sequence of IR instruction by one “virtual” IR instruction):
>
>
> This (actually, your sequence of selects, and add) would be matched during ISel to:
>