[LLVMdev] Unaligned load/store for callee-saved 128-bit registers

Hal Finkel hfinkel at anl.gov
Thu Nov 21 12:24:59 PST 2013


----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>
> To: "Francois Pichet" <pichet2000 at gmail.com>
> Cc: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>
> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 2:45:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Unaligned load/store for callee-saved 128-bit registers
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Francois Pichet" <pichet2000 at gmail.com>
> > To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>
> > Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 2:26:30 PM
> > Subject: [LLVMdev] Unaligned load/store for callee-saved 128-bit
> > registers
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On my (out-of-tree) target I have 16 128-bit registers.
> > Unaligned load/store are illegal. (must 16-bytes aligned)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 8 of those registers are defined as callee-saved and 8
> > caller-saved.
> > The default stack size is 4 bytes.
> > The target implements dynamic stack realign to make sure the stack
> > will always be aligned correctly when necessary.
> > 
> > 
> > Yet I am still getting unaligned load/store when running this test
> > case: http://pastie.org/8490604
> > 
> > 
> > The problem is in PEI::calculateCalleeSavedRegisters:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > // We may not be able to satisfy the desired alignment
> > specification
> > of
> > // the TargetRegisterClass if the stack alignment is smaller. Use
> > the
> > // min.
> > Align = std::min(Align, StackAlign);
> > FrameIdx = MFI->CreateStackObject(RC->getSize(), Align, true);
> > 
> > 
> > This will create unaligned load/store for a callee-saved 128-bit
> > register on the frame slot because StackAlign is 4.
> > 
> > 
> > Adding a check for stack realignable or putting all the 128-bit
> > registers as caller-save will fix the problem.
> > 
> > if (!TFI->isStackRealignable()) <--- new line
> > Align = std::min(Align, StackAlign);
> > 
> > Is this a bug or am I missing something?
> > 
> 
> This looks like a bug. By default, isStackRealignable() always
> returns true (this default comes from the TargetFrameLowering
> constructor). I wonder, however, is this is not correctly
> implemented in some backends (X86RegisterInfo::canRealignStack, for
> example, is not completely trivial). Nadav, do you know how this
> works?

[Trying some other relevant people...]

Chad, Jakob: thoughts?

 -Hal

> 
>  -Hal
> 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Francois Pichet, Octasic.
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> > 
> 
> --
> Hal Finkel
> Assistant Computational Scientist
> Leadership Computing Facility
> Argonne National Laboratory
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> 

-- 
Hal Finkel
Assistant Computational Scientist
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory



More information about the llvm-dev mailing list