[llvm] 7d06bdc - [RISCV] Use isCompatible when we need runtime VSETVLIInfo equality. NFC (#94340)

[via llvm-commits]

Author: Luke Lau
Date: 2024-06-15T21:23:24+08:00
New Revision: 7d06bdcdfc0ef97fbc63d7a6b821070d160a64cd

URL: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/7d06bdcdfc0ef97fbc63d7a6b821070d160a64cd
DIFF: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/7d06bdcdfc0ef97fbc63d7a6b821070d160a64cd.diff

LOG: [RISCV] Use isCompatible when we need runtime VSETVLIInfo equality. NFC (#94340)

In VSETVLIInfo we define == as lattice equality, e.g. unknown == unknown
and invalid == invalid. We need this to check if the information at a
block's entry or exit has changed.

However I think we may have been conflating it with the notion that the
state of VL and VTYPE are the same, which isn't the case for two
unknowns, and potentially in an upcoming patch where we don't know the
value of an AVL register (see #93796)

This patch switches over the use in emitVSETVLIs to use isCompatible
with all fields demanded, since we need VL and VTYPE to be known equal
at runtime rather than just the VSETVLIInfos to be the same.

This should be NFC for now we shouldn't reach here with an unknown
state. But it's needed if we're to introduce the notion of an AVLReg
with a nullptr ValNo, which will need this non-reflexive equality.
Specifically, hasSameAVL should return false for this case, but ==
should return true.

Added: 
    

Modified: 
    llvm/lib/Target/RISCV/RISCVInsertVSETVLI.cpp

Removed: 
    


################################################################################
diff  --git a/llvm/lib/Target/RISCV/RISCVInsertVSETVLI.cpp b/llvm/lib/Target/RISCV/RISCVInsertVSETVLI.cpp
index 82358cdd45edc..e7c13f180f64e 100644
--- a/llvm/lib/Target/RISCV/RISCVInsertVSETVLI.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/Target/RISCV/RISCVInsertVSETVLI.cpp
@@ -249,6 +249,13 @@ struct DemandedFields {
     VLZeroness = true;
   }
 
+  static DemandedFields all() {
+    DemandedFields DF;
+    DF.demandVTYPE();
+    DF.demandVL();
+    return DF;
+  }
+
   // Make this the result of demanding both the fields in this and B.
   void doUnion(const DemandedFields &B) {
     VLAny |= B.VLAny;
@@ -713,14 +720,12 @@ class VSETVLIInfo {
                     const LiveIntervals *LIS) const {
     assert(isValid() && Require.isValid() &&
            "Can't compare invalid VSETVLIInfos");
-    assert(!Require.SEWLMULRatioOnly &&
-           "Expected a valid VTYPE for instruction!");
     // Nothing is compatible with Unknown.
     if (isUnknown() || Require.isUnknown())
       return false;
 
     // If only our VLMAX ratio is valid, then this isn't compatible.
-    if (SEWLMULRatioOnly)
+    if (SEWLMULRatioOnly || Require.SEWLMULRatioOnly)
       return false;
 
     if (Used.VLAny && !(hasSameAVL(Require) && hasSameVLMAX(Require)))
@@ -1412,7 +1417,7 @@ void RISCVInsertVSETVLI::emitVSETVLIs(MachineBasicBlock &MBB) {
 
     uint64_t TSFlags = MI.getDesc().TSFlags;
     if (RISCVII::hasSEWOp(TSFlags)) {
-      if (PrevInfo != CurInfo) {
+      if (!PrevInfo.isCompatible(DemandedFields::all(), CurInfo, LIS)) {
         // If this is the first implicit state change, and the state change
         // requested can be proven to produce the same register contents, we
         // can skip emitting the actual state change and continue as if we