[PATCH] D54777: [AArch64] Refactor the scheduling predicates (1/3) (NFC)
Andrea Di Biagio via Phabricator via llvm-commits
llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
Thu Nov 22 03:25:54 PST 2018
andreadb added inline comments.
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Target/AArch64/AArch64SchedPredicates.td:61-62
+// with an extended or scaled register.
+def ScaledIdxBody : CheckAll<[CheckAny<[IsLoadRegOffsetPred,
+ IsStoreRegOffsetPred]>,
+ CheckAny<[CheckNot<CheckMemExtLSL>,
----------------
If `IsLoadRegOffsetPred` and `IsStoreRegOffsetPred` are only used by the definition of `ScaledIdxBody`, then you should simply use a `MCOpcodeSwitchStatement`.
I had a look at your three NFC patches; this is the only place where you use `IsLoadRegOffsetPred` and `IsStoreRegOffsetPred`.
I know that in one of your previous comments you mentioned a prolem with `MCOpcodeSwitchStatement`. I still don't understand what the problem is. When I tried to rewrite your patch using `MCOpcodeSwitchStatement` everything worked fine for me...
I wonder if the issue is caused by the way you defined `ScaledIdxPred`. That definition should be changed to reference `ScaledIdxFn` directly (See my comment below).
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Target/AArch64/AArch64SchedPredicates.td:65-67
+def ScaledIdxPred : MCSchedPredicate<ScaledIdxBody>;
+def ScaledIdxFn : TIIPredicate<"isScaledAddr",
+ MCReturnStatement<ScaledIdxBody>>;
----------------
`ScaledIdxPred` should be defined as `MCSchedPredicate<ScaleIdxFn>`.
Otherwise, you would end up expanding the entire body of 'isScaledAddr` inline; it won't be expanded into a TII call to `isScaledAddr()`.
So, the definitions should be:
```
def ScaledIdxFn : TIIPredicate<"isScaledAddr",
MCReturnStatement<ScaledIdxBody>>;
def ScaledIdxPred : MCSchedPredicate<ScaledIdxFn>;
```
As I mentioned in one of my comments from yesterday, a `TIIPredicate` //is-a// `MCInstPredicate`.
When used in the defintion of a `MCSchedPredicate`, it is expanded by the PredicateExpander (see llvm/utils/Tablegen/PredicateExpander.{h,cpp}) into a TII call.
I wonder if this is the main reason why you think that using a `MCOpcodeSwitchStatement` in the definition of `ScaledIdxBody` is problematic ...
https://reviews.llvm.org/D54777
More information about the llvm-commits
mailing list