This patch updates SCEVExpander::expandUnionPredicate to not create
redundant 'or false, x' instructions. While those are trivially
foldable, they can be easily avoided and hinder code that checks the
size/cost of the generated checks before further folds.
I am planning on look into a few other similar improvements to code
generated by SCEVExpander.
I remember a while ago @lebedev.ri working on doing some trivial folds
like that in IRBuilder itself, but there where concerns that such
changes may subtly break existing code.
Reviewed By: reames, lebedev.ri
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116696
This patch updates recipe creation to ensure all
VPWidenIntOrFpInductionRecipes are in the header block. At the moment,
new induction recipes can be created in different blocks when trying to
optimize casts and induction variables.
Having all induction recipes in the header makes it easier to
analyze/transform them in VPlan.
Reviewed By: Ayal
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111300
Upon further investigation and discussion,
this is actually the opposite direction from what we should be taking,
and this direction wouldn't solve the motivational problem anyway.
Additionally, some more (polly) tests have escaped being updated.
So, let's just take a step back here.
This reverts commit f3190dedeef9da2109ea57e4cb372f295ff53b88.
This reverts commit 749581d21f2b3f53e4fca4eb8728c942d646893b.
This reverts commit f3df87d57e096143670e0fd396e81d43393a2dd2.
This reverts commit ab1dbcecd6f0969976fafd62af34730436ad5944.
It's a no-op, no overflow happens ever: https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/Zw89rZ
While generally i don't like such hacks,
we have a very good reason to do this: here we are expanding
a run-time correctness check for the vectorization,
and said `umul_with_overflow` will not be optimized out
before we query the cost of the checks we've generated.
Which means, the cost of run-time checks would be artificially inflated,
and after https://reviews.llvm.org/D109368 that will affect
the minimal trip count for which these checks are even evaluated.
And if they aren't even evaluated, then the vectorized code
certainly won't be run.
We could consider doing this in IRBuilder, but then we'd need to
also teach `CreateExtractValue()` to look into chain of `insertvalue`'s,
and i'm not sure there's precedent for that.
Refs. https://reviews.llvm.org/D109368#3089809
While we could emit such a tautological `select`,
it will stick around until the next instsimplify invocation,
which may happen after we count the cost of this redundant `select`.
Which is precisely what happens with loop vectorization legality checks,
and that artificially increases the cost of said checks,
which is bad.
There is prior art for this in `IRBuilderBase::CreateAnd()`/`IRBuilderBase::CreateOr()`.
Refs. https://reviews.llvm.org/D109368#3089809
This patch marks the induction increment of the main induction variable
of the vector loop as NUW when not folding the tail.
If the tail is not folded, we know that End - Start >= Step (either
statically or through the minimum iteration checks). We also know that both
Start % Step == 0 and End % Step == 0. We exit the vector loop if %IV +
%Step == %End. Hence we must exit the loop before %IV + %Step unsigned
overflows and we can mark the induction increment as NUW.
This should make SCEV return more precise bounds for the created vector
loops, used by later optimizations, like late unrolling.
At the moment quite a few tests still need to be updated, but before
doing so I'd like to get initial feedback to make sure I am not missing
anything.
Note that this could probably be further improved by using information
from the original IV.
Attempt of modeling of the assumption in Alive2:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/H_DL_g
Part of a set of fixes required for PR50412.
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103255
This was reverted because of a miscompilation. At closer inspection, the
problem was actually visible in a changed llvm regression test too. This
one-line follow up fix/recommit will splat the IV, which is what we are trying
to avoid if unnecessary in general, if tail-folding is requested even if all
users are scalar instructions after vectorisation. Because with tail-folding,
the splat IV will be used by the predicate of the masked loads/stores
instructions. The previous version omitted this, which caused the
miscompilation. The original commit message was:
If tail-folding of the scalar remainder loop is applied, the primary induction
variable is splat to a vector and used by the masked load/store vector
instructions, thus the IV does not remain scalar. Because we now mark
that the IV does not remain scalar for these cases, we don't emit the vector IV
if it is not used. Thus, the vectoriser produces less dead code.
Thanks to Ayal Zaks for the direction how to fix this.
The failing assertion has been fixed and the problematic test case has
been added.
This reverts the revert commit fc44617f28847417e55836193bbe8e9c3f09eca9.
