[PATCH] D75674: [AArch64][SVE] Implement vector tuple intrinsics

[Cullen Rhodes via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

c-rhodes added inline comments.


================
Comment at: llvm/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/SelectionDAGBuilder.cpp:7038
+    assert(Src1.getOpcode() == ISD::CONCAT_VECTORS &&
+           "Unexpected operand for sve_tuple_get");
+
----------------
efriedma wrote:
> This assertion seems ambitious; I'm not sure how you plan to ensure that the sve.tuple.get intrinsic is in the same basic block as the intrinsic that produces the value.
> 
> Is there some reason you're putting this handling into the target-independent SelectionDAGBuilder, as opposed to target-specific code?
> This assertion seems ambitious; I'm not sure how you plan to ensure that the sve.tuple.get intrinsic is in the same basic block as the intrinsic that produces the value.

Sander's patch D80139 fixes copying between BBs and I've updated this patch to use `EXTRACT_SUBVECTOR` to get the vector from the tuple type, rather than looking through the `CONCAT_VECTOR`, so this assert has been removed.

> Is there some reason you're putting this handling into the target-independent SelectionDAGBuilder, as opposed to target-specific code?

Tuple types for structured loads/stores were originally implemented with sizeless structs downstream but adding sizeless structs to the C standard isn't going to happen, so we chose to represent them as multiples of 128-bit vectors, e.g. `svint32x2_t` -> `<n x 8 x i32>`. For vector tuples containing 2 and 4 vectors (LD2/LD4, ST2/ST4) this was fine as the types are powers of 2 and can be broken down by the existing mechanisms, but for LD3/ST3 the types are odd sizes:

  - `svint8x3_t`   -> `<vscale x 48 x i8>`
  - `svint16x3_t` -> `<vscale x 24 x i16>`
  - `svint32x3_t` -> `<vscale x 12 x i32>`
  - `svint64x2_t` -> `<vscale x 6 x i64>`

Which are problematic for legalisation when it comes to widening/splitting. To do this lowering in target-specific AArch64ISelLowering MVTs would have to be defined for these types which aren't legal. By lowering here we avoid these issues as these types don't reach type legalization.


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D75674/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D75674