Skip to content

[PowerPC][AIX] Using milicode for memcmp instead of libcall #147093

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

Open
wants to merge 6 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 4 commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
3 changes: 3 additions & 0 deletions llvm/include/llvm/CodeGen/SelectionDAG.h
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -1257,6 +1257,9 @@ class SelectionDAG {
/// stack arguments from being clobbered.
LLVM_ABI SDValue getStackArgumentTokenFactor(SDValue Chain);

std::pair<SDValue, SDValue> getMemcmp(SDValue Chain, const SDLoc &dl,
SDValue Dst, SDValue Src, SDValue Size,
const CallInst *CI);
/* \p CI if not null is the memset call being lowered.
* \p OverrideTailCall is an optional parameter that can be used to override
* the tail call optimization decision. */
Expand Down
5 changes: 2 additions & 3 deletions llvm/include/llvm/CodeGen/SelectionDAGTargetInfo.h
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@
namespace llvm {

class SelectionDAG;

class CallInst;
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
/// Targets can subclass this to parameterize the
/// SelectionDAG lowering and instruction selection process.
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -118,8 +118,7 @@ class SelectionDAGTargetInfo {
virtual std::pair<SDValue, SDValue>
EmitTargetCodeForMemcmp(SelectionDAG &DAG, const SDLoc &dl, SDValue Chain,
SDValue Op1, SDValue Op2, SDValue Op3,
MachinePointerInfo Op1PtrInfo,
MachinePointerInfo Op2PtrInfo) const {
const CallInst *CI) const {
return std::make_pair(SDValue(), SDValue());
}

Expand Down
3 changes: 3 additions & 0 deletions llvm/include/llvm/IR/RuntimeLibcalls.td
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -248,6 +248,7 @@ foreach FPTy = ["F32", "F64", "F128", "PPCF128"] in {
}

// Memory
def MEMCMP : RuntimeLibcall;
def MEMCPY : RuntimeLibcall;
def MEMMOVE : RuntimeLibcall;
def MEMSET : RuntimeLibcall;
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -1739,12 +1740,14 @@ defset list<RuntimeLibcallImpl> PPCRuntimeLibcalls = {
}

defset list<RuntimeLibcallImpl> PPC64AIXCallList = {
def ___memcmp64 : RuntimeLibcallImpl<MEMCMP>;
def ___memmove64 : RuntimeLibcallImpl<MEMCPY>;
def ___memset64 : RuntimeLibcallImpl<MEMSET>;
def ___bzero64 : RuntimeLibcallImpl<BZERO>;
}

defset list<RuntimeLibcallImpl> PPC32AIXCallList = {
def ___memcmp : RuntimeLibcallImpl<MEMCMP>;
def ___memmove : RuntimeLibcallImpl<MEMMOVE>;
def ___memset : RuntimeLibcallImpl<MEMSET>;
def ___bzero : RuntimeLibcallImpl<BZERO>;
Expand Down
39 changes: 39 additions & 0 deletions llvm/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/SelectionDAG.cpp
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -8820,6 +8820,45 @@ static void checkAddrSpaceIsValidForLibcall(const TargetLowering *TLI,
Twine(AS));
}
}
std::pair<SDValue, SDValue>
SelectionDAG::getMemcmp(SDValue Chain, const SDLoc &dl, SDValue Mem0,
SDValue Mem1, SDValue Size, const CallInst *CI) {

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change

const char *LibCallName = TLI->getLibcallName(RTLIB::MEMCMP);
if (LibCallName == nullptr)
return std::make_pair(SDValue(), SDValue());
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
if (LibCallName == nullptr)
return std::make_pair(SDValue(), SDValue());
if (!LibCallName )
return {};

// Emit a library call.
TargetLowering::ArgListTy Args;
TargetLowering::ArgListEntry Entry;
Entry.Ty = PointerType::getUnqual(*getContext());
Entry.Node = Mem0;
Args.push_back(Entry);
Entry.Node = Mem1;
Args.push_back(Entry);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can you construct Args all at once with an initializer list


Entry.Ty = getDataLayout().getIntPtrType(*getContext());
Entry.Node = Size;
Args.push_back(Entry);

// FIXME: pass in SDLoc
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You have the setDebugLoc below?

TargetLowering::CallLoweringInfo CLI(*this);
bool IsTailCall = false;
bool ReturnsFirstArg = CI && funcReturnsFirstArgOfCall(*CI);
IsTailCall = CI && CI->isTailCall() &&
isInTailCallPosition(*CI, getTarget(), ReturnsFirstArg);

CLI.setDebugLoc(dl)
.setChain(Chain)
.setLibCallee(
TLI->getLibcallCallingConv(RTLIB::MEMCMP),
Type::getInt32Ty(*getContext()),
getExternalSymbol(LibCallName, TLI->getPointerTy(getDataLayout())),
std::move(Args))
.setTailCall(IsTailCall);

std::pair<SDValue, SDValue> CallResult = TLI->LowerCallTo(CLI);
return CallResult;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
std::pair<SDValue, SDValue> CallResult = TLI->LowerCallTo(CLI);
return CallResult;
return TLI->LowerCallTo(CLI);

}

SDValue SelectionDAG::getMemcpy(
SDValue Chain, const SDLoc &dl, SDValue Dst, SDValue Src, SDValue Size,
Expand Down
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion llvm/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/SelectionDAGBuilder.cpp
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -9056,7 +9056,7 @@ bool SelectionDAGBuilder::visitMemCmpBCmpCall(const CallInst &I) {
const SelectionDAGTargetInfo &TSI = DAG.getSelectionDAGInfo();
std::pair<SDValue, SDValue> Res = TSI.EmitTargetCodeForMemcmp(
DAG, getCurSDLoc(), DAG.getRoot(), getValue(LHS), getValue(RHS),
getValue(Size), MachinePointerInfo(LHS), MachinePointerInfo(RHS));
getValue(Size), &I);
if (Res.first.getNode()) {
processIntegerCallValue(I, Res.first, true);
PendingLoads.push_back(Res.second);
Expand Down
6 changes: 6 additions & 0 deletions llvm/lib/Target/PowerPC/PPCSelectionDAGInfo.cpp
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -22,3 +22,9 @@ bool PPCSelectionDAGInfo::isTargetStrictFPOpcode(unsigned Opcode) const {
return Opcode >= PPCISD::FIRST_STRICTFP_OPCODE &&
Opcode <= PPCISD::LAST_STRICTFP_OPCODE;
}

std::pair<SDValue, SDValue> PPCSelectionDAGInfo::EmitTargetCodeForMemcmp(
SelectionDAG &DAG, const SDLoc &dl, SDValue Chain, SDValue Op1, SDValue Op2,
SDValue Op3, const CallInst *CI) const {
return DAG.getMemcmp(Chain, dl, Op1, Op2, Op3, CI);
}
5 changes: 5 additions & 0 deletions llvm/lib/Target/PowerPC/PPCSelectionDAGInfo.h
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -20,6 +20,11 @@ class PPCSelectionDAGInfo : public SelectionDAGTargetInfo {
bool isTargetMemoryOpcode(unsigned Opcode) const override;

bool isTargetStrictFPOpcode(unsigned Opcode) const override;

std::pair<SDValue, SDValue>
EmitTargetCodeForMemcmp(SelectionDAG &DAG, const SDLoc &dl, SDValue Chain,
SDValue Op1, SDValue Op2, SDValue Op3,
const CallInst *CI) const;
};

} // namespace llvm
Expand Down
3 changes: 1 addition & 2 deletions llvm/lib/Target/SystemZ/SystemZSelectionDAGInfo.cpp
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -181,8 +181,7 @@ static SDValue addIPMSequence(const SDLoc &DL, SDValue CCReg,

std::pair<SDValue, SDValue> SystemZSelectionDAGInfo::EmitTargetCodeForMemcmp(
SelectionDAG &DAG, const SDLoc &DL, SDValue Chain, SDValue Src1,
SDValue Src2, SDValue Size, MachinePointerInfo Op1PtrInfo,
MachinePointerInfo Op2PtrInfo) const {
SDValue Src2, SDValue Size, const CallInst *CI) const {
SDValue CCReg;
// Swap operands to invert CC == 1 vs. CC == 2 cases.
if (auto *CSize = dyn_cast<ConstantSDNode>(Size)) {
Expand Down
3 changes: 1 addition & 2 deletions llvm/lib/Target/SystemZ/SystemZSelectionDAGInfo.h
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -41,8 +41,7 @@ class SystemZSelectionDAGInfo : public SelectionDAGTargetInfo {
std::pair<SDValue, SDValue>
EmitTargetCodeForMemcmp(SelectionDAG &DAG, const SDLoc &DL, SDValue Chain,
SDValue Src1, SDValue Src2, SDValue Size,
MachinePointerInfo Op1PtrInfo,
MachinePointerInfo Op2PtrInfo) const override;
const CallInst *CI) const override;

std::pair<SDValue, SDValue>
EmitTargetCodeForMemchr(SelectionDAG &DAG, const SDLoc &DL, SDValue Chain,
Expand Down
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion llvm/test/CodeGen/PowerPC/memintr32.ll
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ define i32 @memcmp_test(ptr nocapture noundef readonly %ptr1, ptr nocapture noun
; CHECK-AIX-32-P9-NEXT: mflr r0
; CHECK-AIX-32-P9-NEXT: stwu r1, -64(r1)
; CHECK-AIX-32-P9-NEXT: stw r0, 72(r1)
; CHECK-AIX-32-P9-NEXT: bl .memcmp[PR]
; CHECK-AIX-32-P9-NEXT: bl .___memcmp[PR]
; CHECK-AIX-32-P9-NEXT: nop
; CHECK-AIX-32-P9-NEXT: addi r1, r1, 64
; CHECK-AIX-32-P9-NEXT: lwz r0, 8(r1)
Expand Down
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion llvm/test/CodeGen/PowerPC/memintr64.ll
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ define noundef i32 @_Z11memcmp_testPKvS0_m(ptr noundef readonly captures(none) %
; CHECK-AIX-64-P9-NEXT: mflr r0
; CHECK-AIX-64-P9-NEXT: stdu r1, -112(r1)
; CHECK-AIX-64-P9-NEXT: std r0, 128(r1)
; CHECK-AIX-64-P9-NEXT: bl .memcmp[PR]
; CHECK-AIX-64-P9-NEXT: bl .___memcmp64[PR]
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This doesn't look like a tail call? Make sure both tail and non-tail cases are tested?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@diggerlin diggerlin Jul 10, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This doesn't look like a tail call? Make sure both tail and non-tail cases are tested?

you are correct, the IR in the test case is tail call, but the generated asm is not tail call, I think it codegen issue of AIX which not related to the patch. there is a fix patch ([PowerPC] Initial support of tail call optimization on AIX for it. but not land yet.

; CHECK-AIX-64-P9-NEXT: nop
; CHECK-AIX-64-P9-NEXT: addi r1, r1, 112
; CHECK-AIX-64-P9-NEXT: ld r0, 16(r1)
Expand Down
Loading