-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15.4k
[RISCV] improve musttail support
#170547
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
Open
folkertdev
wants to merge
5
commits into
llvm:main
Choose a base branch
from
folkertdev:riscv-tail-call-based-on-loongarch
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
[RISCV] improve musttail support
#170547
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
2865ca1
deduplicate `addTokenForArgument`
folkertdev 2945d99
riscv: improve musttail based on loongarch code
folkertdev 6c75b24
riscv: add musttail test
folkertdev cab416d
riscv: support byval tail call arguments
folkertdev ef13b0e
riscv: update 'failed to perform tail call elimination' example
folkertdev 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
Some comments aren't visible on the classic Files Changed page.
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
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
This is making a big assumption about the chain layout, can't you collect this when actually emitting the argument operations in the first place?
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'm for sure not the right person to answer that question.
This code is taken from the aarch64 backend originally, which fixed its tail calls in #109943. From what I've been able to gather, the other backends in play worked off of the aarch64 template.
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.
That's ARM not AArch64.
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.
hmm I got confused then. The
addTokenForArgumentfunction is from 11 years ago (and I guess has worked OK over that period):09cc564
but I know that aarch64 support for tail calls with byval arguments improved in llvm 20 (https://godbolt.org/z/b5KbTPqzY), and I guess I got that mixed up with comments in the riscv tail call implementation saying it's based on the arm code.
Is there a way to still share code when following this suggestion? At least as I understand it it needs some additional bookkeeping on e.g.
RISCVMachineFunctionInfowhen processing arguments inLowerFormalArguments?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.
This is state local to the selection process, so preferably this should stay out of MachineFunctionInfo. Maybe FunctionLoweringInfo can track this?