[LIBCLC] Add support for more generic atomic operations

[jchlanda]

The diffs are quite hard to follow, but in an essence this patch brings:

• a new entry, implementing a generic address space for multiple __CLC_NVVM_ATOMIC_XYZ_IMPL, where XYZ stands for CAS, INDEC, LOAD, MAX, MIN, STORE and SUB,
• fixes the name of mangled function that the IMPL uses,
• the rest is just formatting to 80 chars.

This patch supersedes: #5849 but it requires the fixes to the remangler from: #7220

Fixes: #7658

[jchlanda]

Changing it to a draft, till #7220 is merged.

[jchlanda]

/verify with intel/llvm-test-suite#1446

[jchlanda]

/verify with intel/llvm-test-suite#1446

[romanovvlad]

@bader Could you please help with reviewing?

[jchlanda]

/verify with intel/llvm-test-suite#1446

[jchlanda]

/verify with intel/llvm-test-suite#1446

[jchlanda]

/verify with intel/llvm-test-suite#1446

[jchlanda]

Build failure was caused by the discrepancy in the macros, as the use/def were added over 2 commits (d2eb42f and b35194f)

[jchlanda]

/verify with intel/llvm-test-suite#1446

[jchlanda]

/verify with intel/llvm-test-suite#1446

[steffenlarsen]

LGTM!

[steffenlarsen]

Verification failures unrelated:

OpenCL:

Timed Out Tests (2):
#7740
SYCL :: Basic/code_location_e2e.cpp

#7741
SYCL :: HostInteropTask/host-task-failure.cpp

---

Failed Tests (2):
#7742
SYCL :: KernelAndProgram/multiple-kernel-linking.cpp

Also mentioned in #7745
SYCL :: XPTI/kernel/basic.cpp

---

Level Zero:

Timed Out Tests (2):
#7741
SYCL :: HostInteropTask/host-task-failure.cpp

---

Failed Tests (19):
#7745
SYCL :: Basic/group_async_copy.cpp

#7744
SYCL :: DeviceLib/imf_fp16_trivial_test.cpp
SYCL :: DeviceLib/imf_fp32_test.cpp
SYCL :: DeviceLib/imf_half_type_cast.cpp

#7743
SYCL :: Reduction/reduction_big_data.cpp
SYCL :: Reduction/reduction_nd_N_vars.cpp
SYCL :: Reduction/reduction_nd_conditional.cpp
SYCL :: Reduction/reduction_nd_dw.cpp
SYCL :: Reduction/reduction_nd_ext_half.cpp
SYCL :: Reduction/reduction_nd_lambda.cpp
SYCL :: Reduction/reduction_range_1d_dw.cpp
SYCL :: Reduction/reduction_range_1d_dw_64bit.cpp
SYCL :: Reduction/reduction_range_1d_rw.cpp
SYCL :: Reduction/reduction_range_2d_dw.cpp
SYCL :: Reduction/reduction_range_2d_rw.cpp
SYCL :: Reduction/reduction_range_3d_dw.cpp
SYCL :: Reduction/reduction_range_N_vars.cpp
SYCL :: Reduction/reduction_range_lambda.cpp
SYCL :: Reduction/reduction_usm.cpp

[steffenlarsen]

@jchlanda - It looks like some of the newly enabled test-suite tests are failing for CUDA still, specifically due to AtomicStore. See for example https://github.com/intel/llvm/actions/runs/3693963954/jobs/6254968423.

[jchlanda]

Interesting, it does look like a generic pointer in those stores, will have a look.

[jchlanda]

@jchlanda - It looks like some of the newly enabled test-suite tests are failing for CUDA still, specifically due to AtomicStore. See for example https://github.com/intel/llvm/actions/runs/3693963954/jobs/6254968423.

@steffenlarsen I think I know what's going on here. Seems like there are two problems:

• hard coded mangled name in libclc is wrong, I've looked in disassembled file and can see instances of _Z19_spirv_AtomicStoreP ... Scope::MemorySemanticsMask ... that :: is most likely a type substitution gone wrong in the name.
• looks like I've got my check-libclc wrong and it only runs remangler against clc-nvptx64--nvidiacl.bc, whereas we should be probably running it against everything that is generated, i.e.:

builtins.link.clc-nvptx64--nvidiacl.bc     
builtins.link.libspirv-nvptx64--.bc        
builtins.link.libspirv-nvptx64--nvidiacl.bc
builtins.opt.clc-nvptx64--nvidiacl.bc      
builtins.opt.libspirv-nvptx64--.bc
builtins.opt.libspirv-nvptx64--nvidiacl.bc 
clc-nvptx64--nvidiacl.bc                   
libspirv-nvptx64--.bc                      
libspirv-nvptx64--nvidiacl.bc              

which is why it wasn't picked up earlier, as clc-nvptx64--nvidiacl.bc does not contain all the functions.

I'm not sure what is the best course of action here, either reverting the patch, or XFAILING those 4 tests, as I'm unlikely to get the fix today.

[steffenlarsen]

Thank you, @jchlanda ! Since they were just enabled, I think adding XFAIL back to those tests is the best course of action. Your patch seems to still work for a good chunk of them so we may as well keep this functionality, unless you can think of a reason why it may be disruptive?