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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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 ARM64/SVE2: Add increment/decrement from predicate register instructions #94811
JIT ARM64/SVE2: Add increment/decrement from predicate register instructions #94811
Changes from 4 commits
6b9db26
f96fa21
91fc564
fbfdc9b
83bcb09
13d8fb6
52f5a50
d000a17
36becce
ebc6141
158c71d
46f2b67
a8e634b
4fe7266
90c5bbe
3c3148a
b72b908
953bb55
c15420a
59ae6e2
9e14baa
059b027
3361154
02c03ed
538f524
51d0b1c
0744ee9
dbe6add
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 these forms be merged?
(Or should we wait to decide on merging until after many/all instructions have been implemented?)
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 ok with either doing it now or waiting until after we've implemented all of them. @kunalspathak @TIHan do you have any preference for this?
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.
Will be good to wait so we can track the coverage of them as listed in #94549. We can then have one pass to combine all the duplicate ones.
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.
Why might these two groups write to GC Reg? (It's possible I've been missing some from my PRs)
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.
Ah sorry, didn't mean to push that in the first place. I don't think we should worry about touching
emitInsMayWriteToGCReg
for now. Once we start emitting these SVE instructions for actual codegen, we might need to come back to this method.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.
Seems like we need a
emitPredicateRegName
than handles the "fake" predicate registers but still outputsp0
throughp15
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.
Kunal has a temporary implementation for this in #95016. As an aside, there seems to be potential for circular dependencies between these two PRs. Should I wait for Kunal's to be merged in first? I can then update my implementation with the new methods #95016 adds in (like
emitPredicateRegName
) and also update the predicate register TODOs to use the aliases you suggested above.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 could use the new REG_P0 to REG_P15. And/or define
REG_P_FIRST
andREG_P_LAST
?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 done in #95016