<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto">Hi Thomas,<div><br></div><div>If you know a specific instruction pushes a value on the stack and want to represent that as a virtual register (as opposed to a frame index for instance), you could use an explicit def with a pseudo that you later lower to your actual instruction with the stack access.</div><div><br></div><div>I am not sold on the bit approach for now. It seems to me that we are working around a proper modeling. If you want to pursue with that approach, I would need more information on the semantic of that bit, how it is going to be used, what problem it solves and so on, to give a better opinion.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>Q<br><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">Le 18 nov. 2019 à 19:35, Thomas Lively <tlively@google.com> a écrit :<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Hi Quentin,<div><br></div><div>Thanks, that explanation makes sense. I can see that in a normal register machine, implicitly defs must be physical registers. In a stack machine like WebAssembly, though, implicit defs are known to be pushed onto the value stack just like any other defs. Slots on the value stack are represented by virtual registers until stackification, so for WebAssembly we do need the implicit defs to be stored in virtual registers. I guess the best thing to do for now would be to add a bit to the MCInstrDesc carrying this information.</div><div><br></div><div>Thomas</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 6:53 PM Quentin Colombet <<a href="mailto:qcolombet@apple.com">qcolombet@apple.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;">Hi Thomas,<div><br></div><div>The reason is simply because an implicit def of a virtual register doesn’t make sense in theory.</div><div><br></div><div>The rationale is let say that an instruction implicitly defines a virtual register. The implicit aspect of it means that this information cannot be “seen”. Thus, when we finally emit the instruction, there is nothing in the encoding or anywhere that is going to tell where the value has been physically defined.</div><div><br></div><div>The only way something is implicitly defined is when everybody knows where the value is going to end up and that’s only achievable in a physical register.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>-Quentin<br><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Nov 18, 2019, at 6:21 PM, Thomas Lively via llvm-dev <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> wrote:</div><br><div><div dir="ltr">Hi all,<div><br></div><div>I need to figure out why InstrEmitter::EmitMachineNode assumes that when the number of outputs of a MachineSDNode is greater than the number of defs in the corresponding MCInstrDesc, the outputs in the difference will be placed into physical registers as opposed to virtual registers.<br></div><div><br></div><div>The specific line in question is:</div><div> bool HasPhysRegOuts = NumResults > NumDefs && II.getImplicitDefs()!=nullptr;</div><div><br></div><div>Where NumResults is the number of outputs in the MachineSDNode and NumDefs comes from the MCInstrDesc and ultimately the TableGen definition of the instruction. I do not know why this assumption is made or what code depends on it, but it is over 12 years old: <a href="https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/c5549fc3a055710a3958a5b3164db3fa167c720c#diff-9dfdb934cb2b01ba001da4bbf3c5cb3cR632" target="_blank">https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/c5549fc3a055710a3958a5b3164db3fa167c720c#diff-9dfdb934cb2b01ba001da4bbf3c5cb3cR632</a>. </div><div><br></div><div>The context for this question is that I am trying to implement an instruction for the WebAssembly backend that returns a variable number of operands. I am following the example of ARM's load multiple instructions, but this assertion in the instruction emitter is causing problems because WebAssembly, unlike ARM, does not use physical registers at all. Also, almost all WebAssembly instructions have an implicit def of the register that represents the argument stack, so II.getImplicitDefs() is necessarily non-null.</div><div><br></div><div>I am open to ideas about the best way forward. I am currently thinking that if this assumption is important for most targets, I might need to add a new bit to MCInstrDesc to disable this assumption.</div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>LLVM Developers mailing list<br><a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br><a href="https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote></div></body></html>