rampitec added inline comments.
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Target/AMDGPU/SIISelLowering.cpp:12155
+ OptimizationRemark Remark(DEBUG_TYPE, "Passed", RMW->getFunction());
+ Remark << "A floating-point atomic instruction with no following use"
+ " will generate an unsafe hardware instruction";
----------------
I do not understand this message about the use. We are checking the use below
simply because there was no return version of global_atomic_add_f32 on gfx908,
so we are forced to expand it.
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Target/AMDGPU/SIISelLowering.cpp:12165
- return RMW->use_empty() ? AtomicExpansionKind::None
- : AtomicExpansionKind::CmpXChg;
+ if (RMW->use_empty()) {
+ if (RMW->getFunction()
----------------
That's a lot of churn. Please create a function returning AtomicExpansionKind,
pass what you are going to return into that function, return that argument from
the function, and also pass a string for diagnosticts to emit from there.
Replace returns here with its calls. Like:
`return reportAtomicExpand(AtomicExpansionKind::None, ORE, "Produced HW atomic
is unsafe and might not update memory");`
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Target/AMDGPU/SIISelLowering.cpp:12198
+ Remark
+ << "A floating-point atomic instruction will generate an unsafe"
+ " hardware instruction";
----------------
This one might be unsafe not because of the cache it works on, but because it
might not follow denorm mode.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D106891/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D106891
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
