-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.4k
[MIPS] Sign-extend subwords when expanding atomic max/min #89246
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
Closed
jdmitrovic-syrmia
wants to merge
1
commit into
llvm:main
from
jdmitrovic-syrmia:mips-fix-sign-extend
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
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
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
I am sorry that I don't understand it well.
seh
does be sign-extended. The result ofseh
is good enough forslt
.Why do we need to extend them to 32bit value?
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.
And
sllv
here may make the result incorrect.The return value should be a signed int16, while with
sllv
it will be (sign int16
)<<$10.Note, $10 here contains the offset of a int16 in the a word, it may be
0
or16
.I guess the reason we do it is that we have only
ll
, while nollb/llh
.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.
Because
slt
compares signed integers. When comparing subwords, we need to take the sign of the subwords into consideration. When the subword isn't at the MSB spot, we get the result we didn't expect.Correct, $10 contains the offset. The code after my changes needs the subwords to be placed with the provided offset inside a word. That is what #77072 didn't do: the subword was shifted to the LSB spot and left there, causing unexpected behavior in the subsequent code.
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 see. Thanks.
While it seems there is another problem introduced by the previous patch (not your current):
if
ptr
is something likeour code will overwrite another halfword.
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.
Another question, does
atomicrmw
need to support unaligned access?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 don't believe so. According to the documentation,
alignment
field is always present for in-memory IR and default alignment is provided when the alignment field isn't present.However, I'm unsure how your questions tie in with this PR.