Skip to content
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

simd_op_check failures for arm64 at recent top-of-tree LLVM #6499

Closed
steven-johnson opened this issue Dec 15, 2021 · 2 comments
Closed

simd_op_check failures for arm64 at recent top-of-tree LLVM #6499

steven-johnson opened this issue Dec 15, 2021 · 2 comments

Comments

@steven-johnson
Copy link
Contributor

Looks like recent LLVM changes have broken xtn usage; a git bisect locally suggests the culprit is:

65033ef9e8a6ecf7c2ad80c4e3e0c339b44e61b4 is the first bad commit
commit 65033ef9e8a6ecf7c2ad80c4e3e0c339b44e61b4
Author: Alexandros Lamprineas <alexandros.lamprineas@arm.com>
Date:   Tue Dec 14 11:28:22 2021 +0000

    [AArch64] Add a tablegen pattern for UZP1.

    Converts concat_vectors(V64 (trunc V128), V64 (trunc V128)), which
    would otherwise be lowered as xtn followed by xtn2, to uzp1.

    Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115435

 llvm/lib/Target/AArch64/AArch64InstrInfo.td        |  10 ++
 llvm/test/CodeGen/AArch64/arm64-convert-v4f64.ll   |   5 +-
 .../AArch64/concat_vector-truncate-combine.ll      |  46 +++++-
 .../CodeGen/AArch64/dag-combine-trunc-build-vec.ll |   3 +-
 llvm/test/CodeGen/AArch64/fcvt_combine.ll          |  72 +++++-----
 llvm/test/CodeGen/AArch64/fp16-v8-instructions.ll  |  36 +++--
 llvm/test/CodeGen/AArch64/fpclamptosat_vec.ll      | 160 ++++++++++-----------
 llvm/test/CodeGen/AArch64/fptosi-sat-vector.ll     | 120 ++++++++--------
 llvm/test/CodeGen/AArch64/fptoui-sat-vector.ll     | 124 ++++++++--------
 llvm/test/CodeGen/AArch64/neon-truncstore.ll       |  57 +++-----
 10 files changed, 323 insertions(+), 310 deletions(-)
@dsharletg
Copy link
Contributor

Sounds like this might actually have been an optimization that simd_op_check is just brittle with respect to?

@steven-johnson
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sounds like this might actually have been an optimization that simd_op_check is just brittle with respect to?

yep, fix on the way shortly

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants