-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14.3k
AtomicExpand: Fix creating invalid ptrmask for fat pointers #94955
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
8f75750
AtomicExpand: Fix creating invalid ptrmask for fat pointers
arsenm f9472f4
AMDGPU: Add some codegen tests for ptrmask with fat pointers
arsenm 1b0e274
AMDGPU: Add more tests for ptrmask with fat pointers
arsenm 181835b
Merge branch 'main' into atomic-expand-fat-pointers
arsenm 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
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.
Not sure this is really sensible. I'm surprised this is i32 and not i64, and since this is zero extended, this is probably nonsense
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.
The codegen seems correct, but mostly because of the pre-processing IR pass splits these into the i128 + i32 structs
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 doesn't actually guarantee an aligned pointer, since a
ptr addrspace(7)
is aconcat(i128 rsrc, i32 offset)
, or, more relevantly, anconcat(i32 flags, i32 extent, i16 flags, i48/ptr base_address, i32 offset)
.The address an atomic operates on is
add(base_address, zext(offset))
for these pointers, so ifbase_address
is unaligned, clearing the low bits of the offset won't do anything.I'm not sure what, if anything, we'd want to do about 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.
Unsigned offsets are so problematic. I guess we could interpret this as a mask on the base address instead? But for that, we would want this to be the 64/48-bit mask and not the 32-bit indexing type
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.
AMD only supports unsigned offsets (unless you count those weird SRC2 LDS instructions), but they're also never larger than 32 bits.
Speaking of LDS, does any of this change for those instructions? IIUC, the AtomicExpansion works for both.
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.
global/scratch instructions are supposed to support signed offsets, but it was broken for a few generations.
None of this matters for LDS or those cases since they are normal pointers