[ARM] Add support for the X asm constraint

Summary:
This patch adds support for the X asm constraint.

To do this, we lower the constraint to either a "w" or "r" constraint
depending on the operand type (both constraints are supported on ARM).

Fixes PR26493

Reviewers: t.p.northover, echristo, rengolin

Subscribers: joker.eph, jgreenhalgh, aemerson, rengolin, llvm-commits

Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19061

llvm-svn: 267411

llvm/lib/Target/ARM/ARMISelLowering.cpp

@@ -11498,6 +11498,26 @@ bool ARMTargetLowering::ExpandInlineAsm(CallInst *CI) const {
   return false;
 }
 
+const char *ARMTargetLowering::LowerXConstraint(EVT ConstraintVT) const {
+  // At this point, we have to lower this constraint to something else, so we
+  // lower it to an "r" or "w". However, by doing this we will force the result
+  // to be in register, while the X constraint is much more permissive.
+  //
+  // Although we are correct (we are free to emit anything, without
+  // constraints), we might break use cases that would expect us to be more
+  // efficient and emit something else.
+  if (!Subtarget->hasVFP2())
+    return "r";
+  if (ConstraintVT.isFloatingPoint())
+    return "w";
+  if (ConstraintVT.isVector() && Subtarget->hasNEON() &&
+     (ConstraintVT.getSizeInBits() == 64 ||
+      ConstraintVT.getSizeInBits() == 128))
+    return "w";
+
+  return "r";
+}
+
 /// getConstraintType - Given a constraint letter, return the type of
 /// constraint it is for this target.
 ARMTargetLowering::ConstraintType

llvm/lib/Target/ARM/ARMISelLowering.h

@@ -336,6 +336,8 @@ namespace llvm {
     getRegForInlineAsmConstraint(const TargetRegisterInfo *TRI,
                                  StringRef Constraint, MVT VT) const override;
 
+    const char *LowerXConstraint(EVT ConstraintVT) const override;
+
     /// LowerAsmOperandForConstraint - Lower the specified operand into the Ops
     /// vector.  If it is invalid, don't add anything to Ops. If hasMemory is
     /// true it means one of the asm constraint of the inline asm instruction

llvm/test/CodeGen/ARM/inlineasm-X-allocation.ll

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+; RUN: llc -mtriple=armv7-none-eabi -mattr=-neon,-vfpv2 %s -o - | FileCheck %s  -check-prefix=novfp
+; RUN: llc -mtriple=armv7-none-eabi -mattr=+neon %s -float-abi=hard -o - | FileCheck %s -check-prefix=vfp
+
+; vfp-LABEL: f1
+; vfp-CHECK: vadd.f32 s0, s0, s0
+
+; In the novfp case, the compiler is forced to assign a core register.
+; Although this register class can't be used with the vadd.f32 instruction,
+; the compiler behaved as expected since it is allowed to emit anything.
+
+; novfp-LABEL: f1
+; novfp-CHECK: vadd.f32 r0, r0, r0
+
+; This can be generated by a function such as:
+;  void f1(float f) {asm volatile ("add.f32 $0, $0, $0" : : "X" (f));}
+
+define arm_aapcs_vfpcc void @f1(float %f) {
+entry:
+  call void asm sideeffect "vadd.f32 $0, $0, $0", "X" (float %f) nounwind
+  ret void
+}

llvm/test/CodeGen/ARM/inlineasm-X-constraint.ll

@@ -0,0 +1,157 @@
+; RUN: llc -mtriple=armv7-none-eabi -mattr=+neon %s -o - | FileCheck %s
+
+; The following functions test the use case where an X constraint is used to
+; add a dependency between an assembly instruction (vmsr in this case) and
+; another instruction. In each function, we use a different type for the
+; X constraint argument.
+;
+; We can something similar from the following C code:
+; double f1(double f, int pscr_value) {
+;   asm volatile("vmsr fpscr,%0" : "=X" ((f)): "r" (pscr_value));
+;   return f+f;
+; }
+
+; CHECK-LABEL: f1
+; CHECK: vmsr fpscr
+; CHECK: vadd.f64
+
+define arm_aapcs_vfpcc double @f1(double %f, i32 %pscr_value) {
+entry:
+  %f.addr = alloca double, align 8
+  store double %f, double* %f.addr, align 8
+  call void asm sideeffect "vmsr fpscr,$1", "=*X,r"(double* nonnull %f.addr, i32 %pscr_value) nounwind
+  %0 = load double, double* %f.addr, align 8
+  %add = fadd double %0, %0
+  ret double %add
+}
+
+; int f2(int f, int pscr_value) {
+;   asm volatile("vmsr fpscr,%0" : "=X" ((f)): "r" (pscr_value));
+;   return f+f;
+; }
+
+; CHECK-LABEL: f2
+; CHECK: vmsr fpscr
+; CHECK: mul
+define arm_aapcs_vfpcc i32 @f2(i32 %f, i32 %pscr_value) {
+entry:
+  %f.addr = alloca i32, align 4
+  store i32 %f, i32* %f.addr, align 4
+  call void asm sideeffect "vmsr fpscr,$1", "=*X,r"(i32* nonnull %f.addr, i32 %pscr_value) nounwind
+  %0 = load i32, i32* %f.addr, align 4
+  %mul = mul i32 %0, %0
+  ret i32 %mul
+}
+
+
+; int f3(int f, int pscr_value) {
+;   asm volatile("vmsr fpscr,%0" : "=X" ((f)): "r" (pscr_value));
+;   return f+f;
+; }
+
+; typedef signed char int8_t;
+; typedef __attribute__((neon_vector_type(8))) int8_t int8x8_t;
+; void f3 (void)
+; {
+;   int8x8_t vector_res_int8x8;
+;   unsigned int fpscr;
+;   asm volatile ("vmsr fpscr,%1" : "=X" ((vector_res_int8x8)) : "r" (fpscr));
+;   return vector_res_int8x8 * vector_res_int8x8;
+; }
+
+; CHECK-LABEL: f3
+; CHECK: vmsr fpscr
+; CHECK: vmul.i8
+define arm_aapcs_vfpcc <8 x i8> @f3() {
+entry:
+  %vector_res_int8x8 = alloca <8 x i8>, align 8
+  %0 = getelementptr inbounds <8 x i8>, <8 x i8>* %vector_res_int8x8, i32 0, i32 0
+  call void asm sideeffect "vmsr fpscr,$1", "=*X,r"(<8 x i8>* nonnull %vector_res_int8x8, i32 undef) nounwind
+  %1 = load <8 x i8>, <8 x i8>* %vector_res_int8x8, align 8
+  %mul = mul <8 x i8> %1, %1
+  ret <8 x i8> %mul
+}
+
+; We can emit integer constants.
+; We can get this from:
+; void f() {
+;   int x = 2;
+;   asm volatile ("add r0, r0, %0" : : "X" (x));
+; }
+;
+; CHECK-LABEL: f4
+; CHECK: add r0, r0, #2
+define void @f4() {
+entry:
+  tail call void asm sideeffect "add r0, r0, $0", "X"(i32 2)
+  ret void
+}
+
+; We can emit function labels. This is equivalent to the following C code:
+; void f(void) {
+;   void (*x)(void) = &foo;
+;   asm volatile ("bl %0" : : "X" (x));
+; }
+; CHECK-LABEL: f5
+; CHECK: bl f4
+define void @f5() {
+entry:
+  tail call void asm sideeffect "bl $0", "X"(void ()* nonnull @f4)
+  ret void
+}
+
+declare void @foo(...)
+
+; This tests the behavior of the X constraint when used on functions pointers,
+; or functions with a cast. In the first asm call we figure out that this
+; is a function pointer and emit the label. However, in the second asm call
+; we can't see through the bitcast and we end up having to lower this constraint
+; to something else. This is not ideal, but it is a correct behaviour according
+; to the definition of the X constraint.
+;
+; In this case (and other cases where we could have emitted something else),
+; what we're doing with the X constraint is not particularly useful either,
+; since the user could have used "r" in this situation for the same effect.
+
+; CHECK-LABEL: f6
+; CHECK: bl foo
+; CHECK: bl r
+
+define void @f6() nounwind {
+entry:
+  tail call void asm sideeffect "bl $0", "X"(void (...)* @foo) nounwind
+  tail call void asm sideeffect "bl $0", "X"(void (...)* bitcast (void ()* @f4 to void (...)*)) nounwind
+  ret void
+}
+
+; The following IR can be generated from C code with a function like:
+; void a() {
+;   void* a = &&A;
+;   asm volatile ("bl %0" : : "X" (a));
+;  A:
+;   return;
+; }
+;
+; Ideally this would give the block address of bb, but it requires us to see
+; through blockaddress, which we can't do at the moment. This might break some
+; existing use cases where a user would expect to get a block label and instead
+; gets the block address in a register. However, note that according to the
+; "no constraints" definition this behaviour is correct (although not very nice).
+
+; CHECK-LABEL: f7
+; CHECK: bl
+define void @f7() {
+  call void asm sideeffect "bl $0", "X"( i8* blockaddress(@f7, %bb) )
+  br label %bb
+bb:
+  ret void
+}
+
+; If we use a constraint "=*X", we should get a store back to *%x (in r0).
+; CHECK-LABEL: f8
+; CHECK: str	r{{.*}}, [r0]
+define void @f8(i32 *%x) {
+entry:
+  tail call void asm sideeffect "add $0, r0, r0", "=*X"(i32 *%x)
+  ret void
+}