[llvm-dev] Dealing with information loss for widened integer operations at ISel time

Alex Bradbury via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu Dec 13 06:25:34 PST 2018

As previously discussed in an RFC
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-October/126690.html>, the
RISC-V backend has i64 as the only legal integer type for the RV64 target.
Thanks to variable-sized register class support, this means there is no need
for duplication of either patterns or instruction definitions for RV32 and
RV64. It's worth noting that RV64I is a different base ISA to RV32I. Rather
than adding 64-bit operations, it re-defines the operations as 64-bit and
introduces a small number of 'W' suffixed instructions such as ADDW, SLLW etc
to operate on 32-bit values.

There are some challenges though. Consider the variable-length shifts
introduced in RV64I. SLLW, SRLW, and SRAW operate on 32-bit values and produce
32-bit sign-extended results. They read only the lower 5 bits from the shift
amount. The following function should trivially resuslt in SRLW being

    define signext i32 @sllw(i32 signext %a, i32 zeroext %b) {
      %1 = shl i32 %a, %b
      ret i32 %1

Except it's not actually possible to write a correct pattern for this. It is
essential to know the original type of the shift amount. The fact it was i32
means that it's safe to select SLLW in this case (as a shift amount > 31 would
be undefined behaviour). It's tempting to write a pattern like the following:

    def : Pat<(sext_inreg (shl GPR:$rs1, GPR:$rs2), i32),
              (SLLW GPR:$rs1, GPR:$rs2)>;

But as Eli Friedman kindly pointed out, the `sext_inreg` node can be generated
in cases other than i32 to i64 widening. e.g.

    define i64 @tricky_shl(i64 %a, i64 %b) {
      %1 = shl i64 %a, %b
      %2 = shl i64 %1, 32
      %3 = ashr i64 %2, 32
      ret i64 %3

There's also likely to be cases where you want to calculate the demanded bits
in order to determine if e.g. a W-suffixed instruction can be selected for
`(somoeop (zexti32 GPR:$rs1), (zexti32 GPR:$rs2))`. This is easy to match if
the SelectionDAG contains an explicit `sext_inreg` of the result. But if not,
you'd need to check whether the upper 32 bits are actually demanded or not.

Any thoughts on how to best handle these cases? For the shifts I could
obviously introduce a target-specific SelectionDAG node, but then I'd lose the
benefit of most of the target-independent DAG combines. A target DAG combine
could custom lower the shift amount. e.g. converting (shl val, shamt) to (shl
val, (and shamt, 31)) before it gets widened to i64. But this runs the risk
of introducing an unnecessary AND operation if it turns out that the
SelectionDAG node is transformed by the time it reaches instruction selection.
So for this particular issue with shifts, introducing a target-specific WasI32
node and converting to (shl val, (WasI32 shamt)) in a target DAG combine looks



More information about the llvm-dev mailing list