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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
JIT: Added four SVE
CreateBreak*
APIs #104184JIT: Added four SVE
CreateBreak*
APIs #104184Changes from all commits
5409c86
a18d66b
c077d1a
1cde299
790882e
c7958cc
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
For BRKB and BRKA, if we do not pass
insScalableOpts
, it is treated asBRK* Pd.B, Pg/Z, Pn.B
. How do we generate the merge variant? If we want to support one of those, should merge be the default one? Accordingly we should also update the summary docs and remove the instruction that we are not supporting. We also need to think about what if alltargetReg
,op1Reg
andop2Reg
end up to same register or two of them have same register, does it change the operation ofPg/M
vs.Pg/Z
. Lastly, we should add test coverage (if not there currently) where we pass same value tomask
andsrcMask
to simulate such behavior.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.
When looking at the original generated API, there were two C intrinsic variants that it listed:
M variant https://dougallj.github.io/asil/doc/brka_p_p_p_m_8.html
Z variant https://dougallj.github.io/asil/doc/brka_p_p_p_z_8.html
Based on the API signature of our intrinsic, it matches exactly to the Z variant - so naturally I think that's most likely the correct one. I figured the M variant that was listed is an artifact of the API generation; as other APIs have before. This also leads me to believe that exposing each variant needs to have their own API.
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, the API generation will have just blindly put them together.
We can we replicate the zero version using:
And then in lowering or somewhere, optimise that to a single BRKA with zeroing.
(Or, if I'm wrong and that doesn't work, then yes, ideally add a extra API)
Doesn't need doing now, but could you raise a ticket please.
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.
Do you mean "merge"? The API is the zero version currently
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.
+1 on that if we decide to skip a variant of the instruction.
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 with just keeping "Z" version. Just update the summary docs.
https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/pull/104184/files#diff-65452cc3b51792a27a23d428011052b18c0b7de4576424a195e0cf5003dc6a9cR987-R988
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.
wondering why you did not include
CreateBreakPropagateMask
?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 that API needs a closer look as its signature doesn't correspond well to its instruction based on its parameter names and parameter count.