[RISC-V][LoongArch64] JIT: pass structs according to floating-point calling convention properly #104237
Conversation
This file contains 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
…carries also exact field sizes and offsets
… FpStruct info calculation
…omputeReturnFlags() This fixes JIT/HardwareIntrinsics/General/Vector* tests.
Co-authored-by: Qiao Pengcheng <qiaopengcheng@loongson.cn>
Co-authored-by: Qiao Pengcheng <qiaopengcheng@loongson.cn>
Co-authored-by: Qiao Pengcheng <qiaopengcheng@loongson.cn>
Co-authored-by: Qiao Pengcheng <qiaopengcheng@loongson.cn>
…they were write-only. Replace with offset from new ABI info
…tack slot over-allocation
dotnet-issue-labeler
bot
added
the
area-CodeGen-coreclr
dotnet-policy-service
bot
added
the
community-contribution
RISC-V starfive-prio1-checked: 9326 / 9345 (99.80%)FailedKilledSkipped |
RISC-V qemu-prio1-checked: 9341 / 9345 (99.96%)FailedKilledSkipped |
RISC-V starfive-prio1-checked: 9326 / 9345 (99.80%)FailedKilledSkipped |
… because they were identical. Move it to Common\Internal/Runtime because it's no longer exposed in JIT interface.
RISC-V starfive-prio1-checked: 9326 / 9345 (99.80%)FailedKilledSkipped |
tomeksowi
changed the title
tomeksowi
commented
Jul 26, 2024
RISC-V qemu-prio1-checked: 9352 / 9353 (99.99%)FailedKilledSkipped |
|
PR ready for review |
5 tasks
RISC-V starfive-prio1-checked: 9353 / 9353 (100.00%)FailedKilledSkipped |
e7b4199 is being scheduled to build and testingCOMMIT: |
1 similar comment
e7b4199 is being scheduled to build and testingCOMMIT: |
|
@dotnet/jit-contrib can anyone review please? |
jakobbotsch
reviewed
Aug 1, 2024
Comment on lines
+4278
to
+4284
| #if defined(TARGET_RISCV64) || defined(TARGET_LOONGARCH64) | ||
| // Structs according to hardware floating-point calling convention are passed as two logical fields, each in | ||
| // separate register, disregarding struct layout such as packing, custom alignment, padding with empty structs, etc. | ||
| // We need size (can be derived from m_regType) & offset of each field for memory load/stores | ||
| unsigned m_fieldOffset[MAX_RET_REG_COUNT]; | ||
| #endif | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we should look to unify this in .NET 10 and just store the offsets for all targets. It will also remove some ifdef soup that exists for Swift handling.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For now I think it's good to keep everything ifdeffed out since we are going into a period where we don't want to take risky changes.
jakobbotsch
approved these changes
Aug 1, 2024
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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.
Small structs containing one or two fields, at least one of them floating-point, can be passed (or returned) according to hardware floating-point calling convention: each field occupying one register. The existing implementation worked only for the narrow case when the fields were naturally placed. However, the ABIs on both platforms when enregistering fields disregard placement hints such as manual alignment, packing attributes, or padding with empty structs (when they are sized 1 byte like in C++ or .NET). This means additional information such as field offsets and sizes needs to be passed wherever registers<->memory copying of such structs happens.
This change uses the new passing information information introduced in #103945 to implement passing such structs in JIT properly.
Stems from #101796, part of #84834, cc @dotnet/samsung