-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15.2k
[Clang][AArch64] Fix checkArmStreamingBuiltin for 'sve-b16b16' #109420
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
sdesmalen-arm
merged 4 commits into
llvm:main
from
sdesmalen-arm:fix-check-arm-streaming-builtin-clang
Oct 8, 2024
Merged
Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
af4cd0b
[Clang][AArch64] Fix checkArmStreamingBuiltin for 'sve-b16b16'
sdesmalen-arm bfa1348
Add TableGen checks
sdesmalen-arm 49c3ed3
Simplify approach by prepending target guard with "sve," or "sme,"
sdesmalen-arm e34305f
Reorder conditions
sdesmalen-arm File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we should need to have
"f32mm"and"f64mm"here (and theCallerFeatureMapWithoutSVEpart). This works at the moment as the only intrinsics that have these in their target-guard also redundantly includesveand are invalid in streaming mode.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for pointing those out!
It's worth saying that we could also implement things differently and require all SVE target guards to have "sve/sve2/sve2p1" as a base, such that
let SVETargetGuard = "sve2-aes"becomeslet SVETargetGuard = "sve2,sve2-aes". That means we need to refactor some of the target guards in the .td files, but it means we don't have to continually add all features that imply sve/sve2/sve2p1 to this list (and the list in SemaARM.cpp). For end-users I think it doesn't matter, the only difference is in the diagnostic which prints the required features for the intrinsic. Perhaps that is the better way forward.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I very much prefer this idea.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree, I think we would definitely benefit in the long-run if we do not have to modify this code when features are added or changed.
(For future work) is it completely crazy to suggest resolving dependency chains back to SVE or SME (or both/neither) using
ExtensionDependencies, which is constructed based on the feature definitions in AArch64Features.td?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I suppose you might not need to change arm_sve.td because you could have
SVETargetGuard(x)implysve,(x)? Likewise for SME.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, I believe so.