The basic idea to this is that a) having a single canonical type makes CSE easier, and b) many of our transforms are inconsistent about which types we end up with based on visit order.
I'm restricting this to constants as for non-constants, we'd have to decide whether the simplicity was worth extra instructions. For constants, there are no extra instructions.
We chose the canonical type as i64 arbitrarily. We might consider changing this to something else in the future if we have cause.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115387
Since d6de1e1a71406c75a4ea4d5a2fe84289f07ea3a1, no attributes is quivalent to
setting attribute to false.
This is a preliminary commit for https://reviews.llvm.org/D99080
This fixes the examples from
D99674 and
https://llvm.org/PR49878
The matchers succeed on partial undef/poison vector constants,
but the transform creates a full 'not' (-1) constant, so it
would undo a demanded vector elements change triggered by the
extractelement.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100044
This pattern may arise more frequently with an enhancement to SLP vectorization suggested in PR42755:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42755
...but we should handle this pattern to make things easier for the backend either way.
For all in-tree targets that I looked at, codegen for typical vector sizes looks better when we change
to a vector select, so this is safe to do without a cost model (in other words, as a target-independent
canonicalization).
For example, if the condition of the select is a scalar, we end up with something like this on x86:
vpcmpgtd %xmm0, %xmm1, %xmm0
vpextrb $12, %xmm0, %eax
testb $1, %al
jne LBB0_2
## %bb.1:
vmovaps %xmm3, %xmm2
LBB0_2:
vmovaps %xmm2, %xmm0
Rather than the splat-condition variant:
vpcmpgtd %xmm0, %xmm1, %xmm0
vpshufd $255, %xmm0, %xmm0 ## xmm0 = xmm0[3,3,3,3]
vblendvps %xmm0, %xmm2, %xmm3, %xmm0
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66095
llvm-svn: 369140
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
The 1st attempt at this:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL314117
was reverted at:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL314118
because of bot fails for clang tests that were checking optimized IR. That should be fixed with:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL314144
...so try again.
Original commit message:
The transform to convert an extract-of-a-select-of-vectors was added at:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL194013
And a question about the validity of this transform was raised in the review:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D1539:
...but not answered AFAICT>
Most of the motivating cases in that patch are now handled by other combines. These are the tests that were added with
the original commit, but they are not regressing even after we remove the transform in this patch.
The diffs we see after removing this transform cause us to avoid increasing the instruction count, so we don't want to do
those transforms as canonicalizations.
The motivation for not turning a vector-select-of-vectors into a scalar operation is shown in PR33301:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33301
...in those cases, we'll get vector ops with this patch rather than the vector/scalar mix that we currently see.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38006
llvm-svn: 314147
The transform to convert an extract-of-a-select-of-vectors was added at:
rL194013
And a question about the validity of this transform was raised in the review:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D1539:
...but not answered AFAICT>
Most of the motivating cases in that patch are now handled by other combines. These are the tests that were added with
the original commit, but they are not regressing even after we remove the transform in this patch.
The diffs we see after removing this transform cause us to avoid increasing the instruction count, so we don't want to do
those transforms as canonicalizations.
The motivation for not turning a vector-select-of-vectors into a scalar operation is shown in PR33301:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33301
...in those cases, we'll get vector ops with this patch rather than the vector/scalar mix that we currently see.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38006
llvm-svn: 314117
When the elements are extracted from a select on vectors
or a vector select, do the select on the extracted scalars
from the input if there is only one use.
llvm-svn: 194013
