afonso360 opened PR #6325 from afonso360:riscv-vec-imm
to bytecodealliance:main
:
:wave: Hey,
This PR adds a new vector instruction format
Vector+Imm
. The encoding is exactly the same asv*.vv
but the second register is instead a 5 bit field. This immediate is signed for most ops, but unsigned for some.
afonso360 requested elliottt for a review on PR #6325.
afonso360 requested wasmtime-compiler-reviewers for a review on PR #6325.
alexcrichton submitted PR review.
alexcrichton submitted PR review.
alexcrichton created PR review comment:
Should this do
i8::try_from(arg0 as i64).ok()?
?Otherwise I think
i64::MIN
would accidentally get truncated to 0?
alexcrichton created PR review comment:
The mask here shouldn't be required, right? Or otherwise this would be ok to perhaps
debug_assert!
that the masked-out bits are all not set?(similar for
funct6
above too maybe?)
alexcrichton created PR review comment:
Oh I see now my thoughts are very much related to https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/pull/6324#discussion_r1182744349
alexcrichton created PR review comment:
I don't know much about RISC-V, but should this
AluOp
be different thanVecAluOpRRR
or the same? The single data point ofVadd
has the encodings the same, but I'm not sure if the pattern holds up elsewhere.
alexcrichton created PR review comment:
My curiosity has been piqued if you're willing to oblige -- according to this doc I see a bunch of V/X/I columns but I'm not sure how that translates to the encoding. Is there a different document that explains how these columns relate to the encoding?
afonso360 created PR review comment:
That table does not seem to be explained anywhere, which is weird the closest thing is 10. Vector Arithmetic Instruction Formats which only really explains the format, but not the encoding in that table. The way I understand it is the following.
There are 3 columns, which correspond to the 3 columns for the minor opcodes at the top (i.e. OPIVV, OPIVX, OPMVX, etc..). The minor opcode corresponds to the funct3 field. (The exact encoding is specified here)
The minor opcodes correspond to the operands that instruction takes.
OPIVV
is for Vector/Vector instructions (i.e.vadd.vv
),OPIVX
is for Vector/X Register instructions (i.e.vadd.vx
) andOPIVI
is for Vector/Immediate instruction (i.e.vadd.vi
) which is what is implemented in this PR.I'm only planning on having 2 instruction formats, since
OP*VV
,OP*VX
andOPFVF
can share the same instruction format in cranelift. Just with an assert that we are using the correct regclass.OPIVI
is the only special one here.The big table displays the funct6 field. Take for example the
vrsub
instruction. It is in the leftmost column, and only hasX
andI
formats. So we know that it only takes the minor opcode formats ofOPIVX
andOPIVI
.vrsub
itself has a funct6 of0b000011
with both of those minor opcodes.There are additional encoding spaces, at the bottom, but my understanding is that these are all OPIVI instructions and that encoding gets put in the immediate field (not 100% sure on this yet).
afonso360 edited PR review comment.
afonso360 created PR review comment:
Yeah, I probably don't need the masking everywhere. I think I might take the approach that @jameysharp is suggesting and switch to
debug_assert
and try to figure out how to get better type safety in the future.
afonso360 edited PR review comment.
afonso360 created PR review comment:
Well, It is the same, but not all Opcodes work on both formats.
vadd
works for both, butvsub
does not have avsub.vi
format. It would be nice if we could share the funct6 mapping somehow though since it is exactly the same on both.
afonso360 edited PR review comment.
afonso360 edited PR review comment.
afonso360 edited PR review comment.
afonso360 edited PR review comment.
afonso360 edited PR review comment.
afonso360 created PR review comment:
I've now put these into a
VecOpCategory
struct so that their encoding is somewhat centralized.
afonso360 updated PR #6325.
afonso360 updated PR #6325.
afonso360 edited PR review comment.
afonso360 updated PR #6325.
alexcrichton created PR review comment:
Ah ok makes sense, in that case sounds good to me to have a minor amount of duplication :+1:
alexcrichton submitted PR review:
Thanks for taking the time to explain! That all sounds good to me and everything looks good to me as well :+1:
afonso360 merged PR #6325.
Last updated: Nov 22 2024 at 17:03 UTC