Hi Richard:
> > In order to model LMUL in backend, we have to the combination of
> > scalar type and LMUL; possible LMUL is 1, 2, 4, 8, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 - 8
> > different types of LMUL, and we'll have QI, HI, SI, DI, HF, SF and DF,
> > so basically we'll have 7 (LMUL type) * 7 (scalar type) here.
>
> Other archs have load/store-multiple instructions, IIRC those
> are modeled with the appropriate set of operands. Do RVV LMUL
> group inputs/outputs overlap with the non-LMUL grouped registers
> and can they be used as aliases or is this supposed to be
> implemented transparently on the register file level only?
LMUL and non-LMUL (or LMUL=1) modes use the same vector register file.
Reg for LMUL=1/2 : { {v0, v1, ...v31} }
Reg for LMUL=1 : { {v0, v1, ...v31} }
Reg for LMUL=2 : { {v0, v1}, {v2, v3}, ... {v30, v31} } // reg. must
align to multiple of 2.
Reg for LMUL=4 : { {v0, v1, v2, v3}, {v4, v5, v6, v7}, ... {v28, v29,
v30, v31} } // reg. must align to multiple of 4.
..
Reg for 2-tuples of LMUL=1 : { {v0, v1}, {v1, v2}, ... {v29, v30}, {v30, v31} }
Reg for 2-tuples of LMUL=2 : { {v0, v1, v2, v3}, {v2, v3, v4, v5}, ...
{v28, v29, v30, v31}, {v28, v29, v30, v31} } // reg. must align to
multiple of 2.
...
> But yes, implementing this as operations on multi-register
> ops with large modes is probably the only sensible approach.
>
> I don't see how LMUL of 1/2, 1/4 or 1/8 is useful though? Can you
> explain? Is that supposed to virtually increase the number of
> registers? How do you represent r0:1/8:0 vs r0:1/8:3 (the first
> and the third "virtual" register decomposed from r0) in GCC? To
> me the natural way would be a subreg of r0?
>
> Somehow RVV seems to have more knobs than necessary for tuning
> the actual vector register layout (aka N axes but only N-1 dimensions
> thus the axes are
The concept of fractional LMUL is the same as the concept of AArch64's
partial SVE vectors,
so they can only access the lowest part, like SVE's partial vector.
We want to spill/restore the exact size of those modes (1/2, 1/4,
1/8), so adding dedicated modes for those partial vector modes should
be unavoidable IMO.
And even if we use sub-vector, we still need to define those partial
vector types.
