[PowerPC] Fix assert exposed by PR 95931 in LowerBITCAST #108062
Merged
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
Hit Assertion failed: Num < NumOperands && "Invalid child # of SDNode!" Check opcode and value type before calling getOperand.
syzaara
requested review from
amy-kwan,
maryammo,
mandlebug,
kamaub,
diggerlin,
lei137 and
stefanp-ibm
|
@llvm/pr-subscribers-backend-powerpc Author: Zaara Syeda (syzaara) ChangesHit Assertion failed: Num < NumOperands && "Invalid child # of SDNode!" Check opcode and value type before calling getOperand. Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108062.diff 2 Files Affected:
diff --git a/llvm/lib/Target/PowerPC/PPCISelLowering.cpp b/llvm/lib/Target/PowerPC/PPCISelLowering.cpp
index fd03eeba911490..ed63b50cd8eeea 100644
--- a/llvm/lib/Target/PowerPC/PPCISelLowering.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/Target/PowerPC/PPCISelLowering.cpp
@@ -9470,12 +9470,13 @@ SDValue PPCTargetLowering::LowerBITCAST(SDValue Op, SelectionDAG &DAG) const {
SDLoc dl(Op);
SDValue Op0 = Op->getOperand(0);
+ if ((Op.getValueType() != MVT::f128) || (Op0.getOpcode() != ISD::BUILD_PAIR))
+ return SDValue();
+
SDValue Lo = Op0.getOperand(0);
SDValue Hi = Op0.getOperand(1);
-
- if ((Op.getValueType() != MVT::f128) ||
- (Op0.getOpcode() != ISD::BUILD_PAIR) || (Lo.getValueType() != MVT::i64) ||
- (Hi.getValueType() != MVT::i64) || !Subtarget.isPPC64())
+ if ((Lo.getValueType() != MVT::i64) || (Hi.getValueType() != MVT::i64) ||
+ !Subtarget.isPPC64())
return SDValue();
if (!Subtarget.isLittleEndian())
diff --git a/llvm/test/CodeGen/PowerPC/f128-bitcast.ll b/llvm/test/CodeGen/PowerPC/f128-bitcast.ll
index ffbfbd0c64ff3f..649ca59fe9ae03 100644
--- a/llvm/test/CodeGen/PowerPC/f128-bitcast.ll
+++ b/llvm/test/CodeGen/PowerPC/f128-bitcast.ll
@@ -86,3 +86,25 @@ entry:
ret i64 %1
}
+define <4 x i32> @test(i512 %a) {
+; CHECK-LABEL: test:
+; CHECK: # %bb.0: # %entry
+; CHECK-NEXT: mtvsrdd v2, r4, r3
+; CHECK-NEXT: blr
+;
+; CHECK-BE-LABEL: test:
+; CHECK-BE: # %bb.0: # %entry
+; CHECK-BE-NEXT: mtvsrdd v2, r9, r10
+; CHECK-BE-NEXT: blr
+;
+; CHECK-P8-LABEL: test:
+; CHECK-P8: # %bb.0: # %entry
+; CHECK-P8-NEXT: mtfprd f0, r3
+; CHECK-P8-NEXT: mtfprd f1, r4
+; CHECK-P8-NEXT: xxmrghd v2, vs1, vs0
+; CHECK-P8-NEXT: blr
+entry:
+ %0 = trunc i512 %a to i128
+ %1 = bitcast i128 %0 to <4 x i32>
+ ret <4 x i32> %1
+}
|
lei137
reviewed
Sep 10, 2024
| (Op0.getOpcode() != ISD::BUILD_PAIR) || (Lo.getValueType() != MVT::i64) || | ||
| (Hi.getValueType() != MVT::i64) || !Subtarget.isPPC64()) | ||
| if ((Lo.getValueType() != MVT::i64) || (Hi.getValueType() != MVT::i64) || | ||
| !Subtarget.isPPC64()) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: maybe good to move !Subtarget.isPPC64() to begining of cond on line 9473.
amy-kwan
approved these changes
Sep 10, 2024
| @@ -86,3 +86,25 @@ entry: | |||
| ret i64 %1 | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| define <4 x i32> @test(i512 %a) { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: Can we maybe be a bit more descriptive for the test title? Not sure if something like truncBitcast makes sense, or something like that?
|
/cherry-pick 22067a8 |
Error: Command failed due to missing milestone. |
VitaNuo
pushed a commit
to VitaNuo/llvm-project
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 12, 2024
Hit Assertion failed: Num < NumOperands && "Invalid child # of SDNode!" Fix by checking opcode and value type before calling getOperand.
|
/cherry-pick 22067a8 |
llvmbot
pushed a commit
to llvmbot/llvm-project
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 16, 2024
Hit Assertion failed: Num < NumOperands && "Invalid child # of SDNode!" Fix by checking opcode and value type before calling getOperand. (cherry picked from commit 22067a8)
|
/pull-request #108834 |
tru
pushed a commit
to llvmbot/llvm-project
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 16, 2024
Hit Assertion failed: Num < NumOperands && "Invalid child # of SDNode!" Fix by checking opcode and value type before calling getOperand. (cherry picked from commit 22067a8)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Hit Assertion failed: Num < NumOperands && "Invalid child # of SDNode!"
Fix by checking opcode and value type before calling getOperand.