On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 4:57 PM Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 2:28 AM Hongtao Liu <crazy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > I think there should be some constraint which explicitly has
> > > > > > > > all the 32
> > > > > > > > GPRs, like there is one for just all 16 GPRs (h), so that
> > > > > > > > regardless of
> > > > > > > > -mapx-inline-asm-use-gpr32 one can be explicit what the inline
> > > > > > > > asm wants.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also, what about the "g" constraint? Shouldn't there be
> > > > > > > > another for "g"
> > > > > > > > without r16..r31? What about the various other memory
> > > > > > > > constraints ("<", "o", ...)?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think we should leave all existing constraints as they are, so
> > > > > > > "r"
> > > > > > > covers only GPR16, "m" and "o" to only use GPR16. We can then
> > > > > > > introduce "h" to instructions that have the ability to handle
> > > > > > > EGPR.
> > > > > > > This would be somehow similar to the SSE -> AVX512F transition,
> > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > we still have "x" for SSE16 and "v" was introduced as a separate
> > > > > > > register class for EVEX SSE registers. This way, asm will be
> > > > > > > compatible, when "r", "m", "o" and "g" are used. The new memory
> > > > > > > constraint "Bt", should allow new registers, and should be added
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > the constraint string as a separate constraint, and conditionally
> > > > > > > enabled by relevant "isa" (AKA "enabled") attribute.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The extended constraint can work for registers, but for memory it
> > > > > > is more
> > > > > > complicated.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, unfortunately. The compiler assumes that an unchangeable register
> > > > > class is used for BASE/INDEX registers. I have hit this limitation
> > > > > when trying to implement memory support for instructions involving
> > > > > 8-bit high registers (%ah, %bh, %ch, %dh), which do not support REX
> > > > > registers, also inside memory operand. (You can see the "hack" in e.g.
> > > > > *extzvqi_mem_rex64" and corresponding peephole2 with the original
> > > > > *extzvqi pattern). I am aware that dynamic insn-dependent BASE/INDEX
> > > > > register class is the major limitation in the compiler, so perhaps the
> > > > > strategy on how to override this limitation should be discussed with
> > > > > the register allocator author first. Perhaps adding an insn attribute
> > > > > to insn RTX pattern to specify different BASE/INDEX register sets can
> > > > > be a better solution than passing insn RTX to the register allocator.
> > > > >
> > > > > The above idea still does not solve the asm problem on how to select
> > > > > correct BASE/INDEX register set for memory operands.
> > > > The current approach disables gpr32 for memory operand in asm_operand
> > > > by default. but can be turned on by options
> > > > ix86_apx_inline_asm_use_gpr32(users need to guarantee the instruction
> > > > supports gpr32).
> > > > Only ~ 5% of total instructions don't support gpr32, reversed approach
> > > > only gonna get more complicated.
> > >
> > > I'm not referring to the reversed approach, just want to point out
> > > that the same approach as you proposed w.r.t. to memory operand can be
> > > achieved using some named insn attribute that would affect BASE/INDEX
> > > register class selection. The attribute could default to gpr32 with
> > > APX, unless the insn specific attribute has e.g. nogpr32 value. See
> > > for example how "enabled" and "preferred_for_*" attributes are used.
> > > Perhaps this new attribute can also be applied to separate
> > > alternatives.
> > Yes, for xop/fma4/3dnow instructions, I think we can use isa attr like
> > (define_attr "gpr32" "0, 1"
> > (cond [(eq_attr "isa" "fma4")
> > (const_string "0")]
> > (const_string "1")))
>
> Just a nit, can the member be named "map0" and "map1"? The code will
> then look like:
>
> if (get_attr_gpr32 (insn) == GPR32_MAP0) ...
>
> instead of:
>
> if (get_attr_gpr32 (insn) == GPR32_0) ...
>
> > But still, we need to adjust memory constraints in the pattern.
>
> I guess the gpr32 property is the same for all alternatives of the
> insn pattern. In this case, "m" "g" and "a" constraints could remain
> as they are, the final register class will be adjusted (by some target
> hook?) based on the value of gpr32 attribute.
I'm worried that not all rtl optimizers after post_reload will respect
base/index_reg_class regarding the insn they belong to.
if they just check if it's a legitimate memory/address (the current
legitimate_address doesn't have a corresponding insn to pass down),
m/g/a will still generate invalid instruction.
So a defensive programming is to explicitly modifying the constraint.
>
> > Ideally, gcc includes encoding information for every instruction,
> > (.i.e. map0/map1), so that we can determine the attribute value of
> > gpr32 directly from this information.
>
> I think the right tool for this is attribute infrastructure of insn
> patterns. We can set the default, set precise value of the insns, or
> calculate attribute from some other attribute in a quite flexible way.
> Other than that, adjusting BASE/INDEX register class of the RA pass is
> the infrastructure change, but perhaps similar to the one you
> proposed.
Yes.
>
> Uros.
--
BR,
Hongtao
