- 
                Notifications
    
You must be signed in to change notification settings  - Fork 15.1k
 
DAG: Avoid creating illegal extract_subvector in legalizer #154100
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
DAG: Avoid creating illegal extract_subvector in legalizer #154100
Conversation
          
 This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.  | 
    
| 
          
 @llvm/pr-subscribers-backend-amdgpu @llvm/pr-subscribers-llvm-selectiondag Author: Matt Arsenault (arsenm) ChangesFixes #153808 Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/154100.diff 2 Files Affected: 
 diff --git a/llvm/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/LegalizeVectorTypes.cpp b/llvm/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/LegalizeVectorTypes.cpp
index bc2dbfb4cbaae..a252d911a1d4d 100644
--- a/llvm/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/LegalizeVectorTypes.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/LegalizeVectorTypes.cpp
@@ -3842,13 +3842,32 @@ SDValue DAGTypeLegalizer::SplitVecOp_EXTRACT_SUBVECTOR(SDNode *N) {
   uint64_t LoEltsMin = Lo.getValueType().getVectorMinNumElements();
   uint64_t IdxVal = Idx->getAsZExtVal();
 
+  unsigned NumResultElts = SubVT.getVectorMinNumElements();
+
   if (IdxVal < LoEltsMin) {
-    assert(IdxVal + SubVT.getVectorMinNumElements() <= LoEltsMin &&
+    assert(IdxVal + NumResultElts <= LoEltsMin &&
            "Extracted subvector crosses vector split!");
     return DAG.getNode(ISD::EXTRACT_SUBVECTOR, dl, SubVT, Lo, Idx);
-  } else if (SubVT.isScalableVector() ==
-             N->getOperand(0).getValueType().isScalableVector())
-    return DAG.getExtractSubvector(dl, SubVT, Hi, IdxVal - LoEltsMin);
+  }
+
+  EVT SrcVT = N->getOperand(0).getValueType();
+  if (SubVT.isScalableVector() == SrcVT.isScalableVector()) {
+    uint64_t ExtractIdx = IdxVal - LoEltsMin;
+    if (ExtractIdx % NumResultElts == 0)
+      return DAG.getExtractSubvector(dl, SubVT, Hi, ExtractIdx);
+
+    // We cannot create an extract_subvector that isn't a multiple of the result
+    // size, which may go out of bounds for the last elements. Shuffle the
+    // desired elements down to 0 and do a simple 0 extract.
+    EVT HiVT = Hi.getValueType();
+    SmallVector<int, 8> Mask(HiVT.getVectorNumElements(), -1);
+    for (int I = 0; I != static_cast<int>(NumResultElts); ++I)
+      Mask[I] = ExtractIdx + I;
+
+    SDValue Shuffle =
+        DAG.getVectorShuffle(HiVT, dl, Hi, DAG.getPOISON(HiVT), Mask);
+    return DAG.getExtractSubvector(dl, SubVT, Shuffle, 0);
+  }
 
   // After this point the DAG node only permits extracting fixed-width
   // subvectors from scalable vectors.
diff --git a/llvm/test/CodeGen/AMDGPU/issue153808-extract-subvector-legalize.ll b/llvm/test/CodeGen/AMDGPU/issue153808-extract-subvector-legalize.ll
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000..f1b1ea3fbd6d7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/llvm/test/CodeGen/AMDGPU/issue153808-extract-subvector-legalize.ll
@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+; NOTE: Assertions have been autogenerated by utils/update_llc_test_checks.py UTC_ARGS: --version 5
+; RUN: llc -mtriple=amdgcn-amd-amdhsa -mcpu=gfx900 < %s | FileCheck -check-prefixes=GFX9,GFX900 %s
+; RUN: llc -mtriple=amdgcn-amd-amdhsa -mcpu=gfx942 < %s | FileCheck -check-prefixes=GFX9,GFX942 %s
+
+define <3 x float> @issue153808_vector_extract_assert(ptr addrspace(1) %ptr) #0 {
+; GFX900-LABEL: issue153808_vector_extract_assert:
+; GFX900:       ; %bb.0:
+; GFX900-NEXT:    s_waitcnt vmcnt(0) expcnt(0) lgkmcnt(0)
+; GFX900-NEXT:    v_mov_b32_e32 v4, v1
+; GFX900-NEXT:    v_mov_b32_e32 v3, v0
+; GFX900-NEXT:    global_load_dwordx4 v[5:8], v[3:4], off
+; GFX900-NEXT:    global_load_dwordx3 v[0:2], v[3:4], off offset:192
+; GFX900-NEXT:    s_mov_b32 s4, 0
+; GFX900-NEXT:    s_mov_b32 s5, s4
+; GFX900-NEXT:    s_mov_b32 s6, s4
+; GFX900-NEXT:    s_mov_b32 s7, s4
+; GFX900-NEXT:    s_waitcnt vmcnt(1)
+; GFX900-NEXT:    buffer_store_dwordx4 v[5:8], off, s[4:7], 0
+; GFX900-NEXT:    s_waitcnt vmcnt(0)
+; GFX900-NEXT:    s_setpc_b64 s[30:31]
+;
+; GFX942-LABEL: issue153808_vector_extract_assert:
+; GFX942:       ; %bb.0:
+; GFX942-NEXT:    s_waitcnt vmcnt(0) expcnt(0) lgkmcnt(0)
+; GFX942-NEXT:    global_load_dwordx4 v[6:9], v[0:1], off
+; GFX942-NEXT:    global_load_dwordx3 v[2:4], v[0:1], off offset:192
+; GFX942-NEXT:    s_mov_b32 s0, 0
+; GFX942-NEXT:    s_mov_b32 s1, s0
+; GFX942-NEXT:    s_mov_b32 s2, s0
+; GFX942-NEXT:    s_mov_b32 s3, s0
+; GFX942-NEXT:    s_waitcnt vmcnt(1)
+; GFX942-NEXT:    buffer_store_dwordx4 v[6:9], off, s[0:3], 0
+; GFX942-NEXT:    s_waitcnt vmcnt(1)
+; GFX942-NEXT:    v_mov_b32_e32 v0, v2
+; GFX942-NEXT:    v_mov_b32_e32 v1, v3
+; GFX942-NEXT:    v_mov_b32_e32 v2, v4
+; GFX942-NEXT:    s_waitcnt vmcnt(0)
+; GFX942-NEXT:    s_setpc_b64 s[30:31]
+  %val = load <51 x float>, ptr addrspace(1) %ptr, align 4
+  %val.slice.0 = shufflevector <51 x float> %val, <51 x float> poison, <4 x i32> <i32 0, i32 1, i32 2, i32 3>
+  call void @llvm.amdgcn.raw.ptr.buffer.store.v4f32(<4 x float> %val.slice.0, ptr addrspace(8) null, i32 0, i32 0, i32 0)
+  %val.slice.48 = shufflevector <51 x float> %val, <51 x float> poison, <3 x i32> <i32 48, i32 49, i32 50>
+  ret <3 x float> %val.slice.48
+}
+
+declare void @llvm.amdgcn.raw.ptr.buffer.store.v4f32(<4 x float>, ptr addrspace(8) writeonly captures(none), i32, i32, i32 immarg) #1
+
+attributes #0 = { nounwind }
+attributes #1 = { nocallback nofree nosync nounwind willreturn memory(argmem: write) }
+;; NOTE: These prefixes are unused and the list is autogenerated. Do not add tests below this line:
+; GFX9: {{.*}}
 | 
    
Verify it's a multiple of the result vector element count instead of asserting this in random combines. The testcase in #153808 fails in the wrong point. Add an assert to getNode so the invalid extract asserts at construction instead of use.
8db5851    to
    6dca7d1      
    Compare
  
    e092268    to
    3fd9c57      
    Compare
  
    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.
LGTM

Fixes #153808