[LLVMdev] Vector LLVM extension v.s. DirectX Shaders
sabre at nondot.org
Thu Dec 15 16:05:02 CST 2005
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Tzu-Chien Chiu wrote:
> To write a compiler for Microsoft Direct3D shaders from our hardware,
> I have a program which translates the Direct3D shader assembly to LLVM
> assembly. I added several intrinsics for this purpose.
> It's a vector ISA and has some special instructions like:
> * rcp (reciprocal)
> * frc (the fractional portion of each input component)
> * dp4 (dot product)
> * exp (exponential)
> * max, min
> These operations are very specific to 3D graphics and missing from the
> LLVM instructions. The vector LLVM extension is not enough to compiled
> Direct3D shaders.
> The result LLVM assembly is assembled by llvm-as, and directly passed
> to llc. The frontend is missing from the picture. The reasons are
> simple. The transformations/optimizations in the frontend
> 1) don't understand the intrinsic
> 2) don't deal with packed type (it's not vectorized)
> I consider to add new instructions, instead of intrinsic, to LLVM.
> However, there are two options.
I think it makes sense for some of these (e.g. permute and insert/extract
element) to be native instructions, but other less used ones can probably
stay intrinsics. In general, intrinsics are far easier to add than
> In the vector LLVM extension, there are dedicated instructions
> manipulating the vectors like 'extract', 'combine', and 'permute'. DSP
> and other scientific programs do not permuate the vectors as frequent
> as 3D programs do.
Yes, I think that rob is interested in porting these instructions to
mainline LLVM, he just hasn't had time so far.
> Almost each 3D instruction requires to permuate its
> operands. For example:
> // Each register is a 4-component vector
> // the names of the components are x, y, z, w
> add r0.xy, r1.zxyw, r2.yyyy
> The components of r1 and r2 and permuted before the addition, but the
> permeation result is _not_ written backed to r1 and r2. 'zxyw' and
> 'yyyy' are the permutation patterns (they are called 'swizzle').
Yup. This is a matter of folding the permute into the add instruction as
part of instruction selection.
> 'xy' is called the write mask. The result is written to only x and y
> component of r0. z and w are left untouched.
> _Almost each_ instruction specifies different write masks and
> swizzles. There will be a lot of extract, combine, and permute LLVA
> instructions. It may make the transformations difficult to match a
> certain pattern in the program semantic tree. For example, to match
> 'mul' and 'add', and merge them to a single instruction 'mad'
I don't really buy that. Why do you think it will be hard? This is
exactly what pattern-matching instruction selectors do.
> For another example, to vectorize several scalar
> operations like:
> add r0.xy, r1.xy, r2.xy
> add r0.zw, r1.zw, r2.zw
> add r0.xyzw, r1.xyzw, r2.xyzw
> If the write mask and swizzles are 'supported' in the each instruction
> per se.
This is a separate transformation, that should be done in the dag
combiner (not in instruction selection), but shouldn't conceptually be a
> The syntax/signature of LLVM assembly will need to be changed
> <result> = add <ty> <var1>, <var2>
> <result>.<writemask> = add <ty> <var1>.<swizzle>, <var2>.<swizzle>
> This could be easier for the frontend transformations to
> recognize/identify the real program semantics, without the additional
> extract, combine, and permute instruction sequences.
I don't agree. Exposing separate operations as separate pieces should be
better. Of course you are welcome to make changes to support this in your
local tree, but we won't be able to accept it back to mainline: it's far
too domain specific, and it can be achieved with explicit permute
>> From the point of view writing frontend vector transformation and
> optimizations, which method is better?
> 1. Follow the vector LLVM extension style, using dedicated instruction
> to manipulate the vectors.
> 2. Support writemask and swizzle (permuate) as part of the instruction syntax.
> I worked on the backend and don't have much experience on the fronted.
> Thank you all.
I think that #1 is the better approach.
More information about the LLVMdev