The min/max intrinsics are not yet canonical, but when they are the tail
predications analysis will change from treating them like icmp to
treating them like intrinsics. Unfortunately, they can currently produce
better code by not being tail predicated thanks to the vectorizer picking
higher VF's and the backend folding to better instructions (especially
for saturate patterns). In the long run we will need to improve the
vectorizers cost modelling, recognizing the instruction directly, but in
the meantime this treats min/max as before to prevent performance
regressions.
This tests code starting from smin/smax, as opposed to the icmp/select
form. Also adds a ARM MVE phase ordering test for vectorizing to
sadd.sat from the original IR.
Since d6de1e1a71406c75a4ea4d5a2fe84289f07ea3a1, no attributes is quivalent to
setting attribute to false.
This is a preliminary commit for https://reviews.llvm.org/D99080
We tend to assume that the AA pipeline is by default the default AA
pipeline and it's confusing when it's empty instead.
PR48779
Initially reverted due to BasicAA running analyses in an unspecified
order (multiple function calls as parameters), fixed by fetching
analyses before the call to construct BasicAA.
Reviewed By: asbirlea
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95117
We tend to assume that the AA pipeline is by default the default AA
pipeline and it's confusing when it's empty instead.
PR48779
Reviewed By: asbirlea
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95117
Explicitly opt-out llvm/test/Transforms/Attributor.
Verified by flipping the default value of allow-unused-prefixes and
observing that none of the failures were under llvm/test/Transforms.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92404
Currently, `-indvars` runs first, and then immediately after `-loop-idiom` does.
I'm not really sure if `-loop-idiom` requires `-indvars` to run beforehand,
but i'm *very* sure that `-indvars` requires `-loop-idiom` to run afterwards,
as it can be seen in the phase-ordering test.
LoopIdiom runs on two types of loops: countable ones, and uncountable ones.
For uncountable ones, IndVars obviously didn't make any change to them,
since they are uncountable, so for them the order should be irrelevant.
For countable ones, well, they should have been countable before IndVars
for IndVars to make any change to them, and since SCEV is used on them,
it shouldn't matter if IndVars have already canonicalized them.
So i don't really see why we'd want the current ordering.
Should this cause issues, it will give us a reproducer test case
that shows flaws in this logic, and we then could adjust accordingly.
While this is quite likely beneficial in-the-wild already,
it's a required part for the full motivational pattern
behind `left-shift-until-bittest` loop idiom (D91038).
Reviewed By: dmgreen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91800
