[llvm-dev] RFC: [X86] Can we begin removing AutoUpgrade support for x86 instrinsics added in early 3.X versions

[Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev]

Hi,

I believe we have a formal policy: we support every bitcode produced since
LLVM 3.0:
https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#ir-backwards-compatibility
(until we decide to uprev the version we support).

Unfortunately, the testing was only added around 3.6 or 3.7? And support is
only as good as the testing we have...

-- 
Mehdi

2017-09-21 0:23 GMT-07:00 Simon Pilgrim via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>:

> I agree with Paul that we need to formalise the compatibility policy
> before we start removing support for old intrinsics. Do we want a
> deprecation warning of some kind for the use of any intrinsic used in
> auto-upgrade, would that actually be useful or just a nuisance?
>
> In the meantime I’m happy to help fix any missing test coverage.
>
> On 20 Sep 2017, at 22:16, Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> I think the general backward-compatibility story has been kind of vague
> for a while.  There was some talk about it at the time of the
> version-numbering change, but I don't remember if it came to any kind of
> solid conclusion.
>
> I think the handling of the old X86 intrinsics would want to follow the
> general compatibility policy, assuming we can all agree on one.  There
> shouldn't be a special case for those IMO.  So, starting a new
> non-X86-specific thread about backward compatibility would be appropriate.
> --paulr
>
> *From:* llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org
> <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org>] *On Behalf Of *Craig Topper via
> llvm-dev
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 20, 2017 1:01 PM
> *To:* Daniel Berlin
> *Cc:* llvm-dev
> *Subject:* Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: [X86] Can we begin removing AutoUpgrade
> support for x86 instrinsics added in early 3.X versions
>
> Many of the older autoupgrades have no test cases because I think when we
> upgraded them we just replace all the code in the tests with native IR. So
> for some of the code we don't even know if it works.
>
> I don't really want to watch the amount of code here continue to grow
> indefinitely. It's pretty poorly structured and has been up against the
> MSVC cascaded if/else limit a couple times. I think they allow about 128.
> Of course this is fixable by better structuring, but we'd probably want to
> fix the lack of tests to be more confident about not breaking it.
>
> The ridiculous number of string compares in the code might be slow, but
> I'm not sure. I've never tried to profile it. We don't divide up the string
> compares based on first letters or anything so I think we run through a lot
> of memcmps.
>
> Unfortunately, the bulk of the upgrade code was added in the 3.7, 3.9, 4.0
> timeframe so the big reduction in code probably requires several more
> years. But I wanted to start a conversation about what our compability
> story looks like going forward.
>
> ~Craig
>
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org>
> wrote:
> Is there a reason why?
> IE is it hard to maintain, slow, or are you just worried it will break? or
> something else?
>
> (I'm not opposed in any way, literally just want to understand the
> motivation)
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Craig Topper via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> We have quite a lot of code in AutoUpgrade.cpp to upgrade X86 intrinsics
> that have been replaced with native IR over the years. Has enough time
> and/or versions passed that we can begin phasing out some of this code?
>
> As I'm writing these we don't seem to have tests for a lot of the older
> upgrades. We've done better at this in the last few years.
>
> 3.1 added upgrade for:
> x86.sse2.pcmpeq.*  - we have almost no test cases for this
> x86.sse2.pcmpgt.* - we no test cases for this
> x86.avx2.pcmpeq.*  - we have no test cases
> x86.avx2.pcmpgt.* - we have no test cases for this
> x86.avx.vpermil.* - we do test this
>
> 3.2 added upgrade for:
> x86.avx.movnt.* - we have tests for this
> x86.xop.vpcom* - we have tests for this
> x86.sse41.ptest.* had its signature chagned and we upgrade from the old
> signature. We don't have tests for the old signature.
> x86.xop.vfrcz.ss/sd had an argument dropped that we upgrade for. We don't
> have any tests for the old signature.
>
> 3.3 had no upgrades
>
> 3.4 removed:
> x86.sse42.crc32.64.8 we do have tests that use it
>
> For the complete list of intrinsic upgrade support, there's an annotated
> list in ShouldUpgradeX86Intrinsic in AutoUpgrade.cpp
>
> ~Craig
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170921/a841ff57/attachment.html>