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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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 Sve.CreateBreakPropagateMask #104704
JIT: Added Sve.CreateBreakPropagateMask #104704
Changes from 10 commits
5513cad
dd2275c
ac80014
2b8ec02
b88f664
244a08a
71b1034
09b3601
3e9cf63
556bf92
def0a43
d3955ff
38a7347
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.
Should't this have
HW_Flag_ExplicitMaskedOperation
too?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.
From the above comment, I can't combine ExplicitMaskedOperation and EmbeddedMaskedOperation.
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.
btw, I just realized that in #104002 this should have been:
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.
It should actually be fine?
intrin.op2
is the RMW node, and BuildDelayFreeUses' second parameter is for the RMW node.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.
No, if you see the summary docs of
BuildDelayFreeUses()
,node
is the node for which we want to create theRefPosition
for, in this caseintrin.op2
andrmwNode
is the node for which we want to make sure that the register doesn't collide with, in this case, it isintrin.op1
. See some examples of places where we callBuildDelayFreeUses()
.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.
If I make that change, I get the assertion:
Assert failure(PID 15364 [0x00003c04], Thread: 6432 [0x1920]): Assertion failed '!"removeListNode didn't find the node"' in 'JIT.HardwareIntrinsics.Arm._Sve.SimpleBinaryOpTest__Sve_CreateMaskForFirstActiveElement_sbyte:RunBasicScenario_UnsafeRead():this' during 'Linear scan register alloc' (IL size 110; hash 0xd48bee8e; FullOpts)
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.
fixed it properly.
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 am little worried about the handling of this. Can you share the JitDump of one of the simpler repro scenario?
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.
Sure, I'll get a JitDump of the LoadBasicScenario.
What specifically are you worried about?
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.
dump.txt
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.
here we are not building refpositions in order. Basically it should be for
Op(1)
,Op(2)
and thenOp(3)
, but here, we are doingOp(2)
,Op(1)
andOp(3)
.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 have fixed this properly and all tests are passing.