If some leaves have the same instructions to be vectorized, we may
incorrectly evaluate the best order for the root node (it is built for the
vector of instructions without repeated instructions and, thus, has less
elements than the root node). In this case we just can not try to reorder
the tree + we may calculate the wrong number of nodes that requre the
same reordering.
For example, if the root node is \<a+b, a+c, a+d, f+e\>, then the leaves
are \<a, a, a, f\> and \<b, c, d, e\>. When we try to vectorize the first
leaf, it will be shrink to \<a, b\>. If instructions in this leaf should
be reordered, the best order will be \<1, 0\>. We need to extend this
order for the root node. For the root node this order should look like
\<3, 0, 1, 2\>. This patch allows extension of the orders of the nodes
with the reused instructions.
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45263
If some leaves have the same instructions to be vectorized, we may
incorrectly evaluate the best order for the root node (it is built for the
vector of instructions without repeated instructions and, thus, has less
elements than the root node). In this case we just can not try to reorder
the tree + we may calculate the wrong number of nodes that requre the
same reordering.
For example, if the root node is \<a+b, a+c, a+d, f+e\>, then the leaves
are \<a, a, a, f\> and \<b, c, d, e\>. When we try to vectorize the first
leaf, it will be shrink to \<a, b\>. If instructions in this leaf should
be reordered, the best order will be \<1, 0\>. We need to extend this
order for the root node. For the root node this order should look like
\<3, 0, 1, 2\>. This patch allows extension of the orders of the nodes
with the reused instructions.
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45263
This is one (small) part of improving PR41312:
https://llvm.org/PR41312
As shown there and in the smaller tests here, if we have some member of the
reduction values that does not match the others, we want to push it to the
end (bring the matching members forward and together).
In the regression tests, we have 5 candidates for the 4 slots of the reduction.
If the one "wrong" compare is grouped with the others, it prevents forming the
ideal v4i1 compare reduction.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87772
The test example based on PR47450 shows that we can
match non-byte-sized shifts, but those won't ever be
bswap opportunities. This isn't a full fix (we'd still
match if the shifts were by 8-bits for example), but
this should be enough until there's evidence that we
need to do more (this is a borderline case for
vectorization in the first place).
Previously we could match fcmp+select to a reduction if the fcmp had
the nonans fast math flag. But if the select had the nonans fast
math flag, InstCombine would turn it into a fminnum/fmaxnum intrinsic
before SLP gets to it. Seems fairly likely that if one of the
fcmp+select pair have the fast math flag, they both would.
My plan is to start vectorizing the fmaxnum/fminnum version soon,
but I wanted to get this code out as it had some of the strangest
fast math flag behaviors.
Other types can be handled in future patches but their uniform / non-uniform costs are more similar and don't appear to cause many vectorization issues.
The 1st attempt (rG557b890) was reverted because it caused miscompiles.
That bug is avoided here by changing the order of folds and as verified
in the new tests.
Original commit message:
InstCombine currently has odd rules for folding insert-extract chains to shuffles,
so we miss collapsing seemingly simple cases as shown in the tests here.
But poison makes this not quite as easy as we might have guessed. Alive2 tests to
show the subtle difference (similar to the regression tests):
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/hp4hv3 (this is ok)
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/ehEWaN (poison leakage)
SLP tends to create these patterns (as shown in the SLP tests), and this could
help with solving PR16739.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86460
InstCombine currently has odd rules for folding insert-extract chains to shuffles,
so we miss collapsing seemingly simple cases as shown in the tests here.
But poison makes this not quite as easy as we might have guessed. Alive2 tests to
show the subtle difference (similar to the regression tests):
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/hp4hv3 (this is ok)
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/ehEWaN (poison leakage)
SLP tends to create these patterns (as shown in the SLP tests), and this could
help with solving PR16739.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86460
The legacy PM alias analysis pipeline by default includes basic-aa.
When running `opt -foo-pass` under the NPM and -disable-basic-aa is not
specified, use basic-aa.
This decreases the number of check-llvm failures under NPM from 913 to 752.
Reviewed By: ychen, asbirlea
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86167
Summary:
This patch takes the indices operands of `insertelement`/`insertvalue`
into account while generation of seed elements for `findBuildAggregate()`.
This function has kept the original order of `insert`s before.
Also this patch optimizes `findBuildAggregate()` preventing it from
redundant temporary vector allocations and its multiple reversing.
Fixes llvm.org/pr44067
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D83779
At the moment this place does not check maximum size set
by TTI and just creates a maximum possible vectors.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D82227
Motivating examples are seen in the PhaseOrdering tests based on:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43953#c2 - if we have
intrinsics there, some pass can fold them.
The intrinsics are still named "experimental" at this point, but
if there is no fallout from this patch, that will be a good
indicator that it is safe to finalize them.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80867
relevant aggregate build instructions only (UserCost).
Users are detected with findBuildAggregate routine and the trick is
that following SLP vectorization may end up vectorizing entire list
with smaller chunks. Cost adjustment then is applied for individual
chunks and these adjustments obviously have to be smaller than the
entire aggregate build cost.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80773
The bug is related to aggregate build cost model adjustment
that adds a bias to cost triggering vectorization of actually
unprofitable to vectorize tree.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80682
This test was failing verification because the
metadata is ill-formed. This commit is split
from D80401 because it is an independent fix
(although the test would break with that change).
This is D77454, except for stores. All the infrastructure work was done
for loads, so the remaining changes necessary are relatively small.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79968
For IR generated by a compiler, this is really simple: you just take the
datalayout from the beginning of the file, and apply it to all the IR
later in the file. For optimization testcases that don't care about the
datalayout, this is also really simple: we just use the default
datalayout.
The complexity here comes from the fact that some LLVM tools allow
overriding the datalayout: some tools have an explicit flag for this,
some tools will infer a datalayout based on the code generation target.
Supporting this properly required plumbing through a bunch of new
machinery: we want to allow overriding the datalayout after the
datalayout is parsed from the file, but before we use any information
from it. Therefore, IR/bitcode parsing now has a callback to allow tools
to compute the datalayout at the appropriate time.
Not sure if I covered all the LLVM tools that want to use the callback.
(clang? lli? Misc IR manipulation tools like llvm-link?). But this is at
least enough for all the LLVM regression tests, and IR without a
datalayout is not something frontends should generate.
This change had some sort of weird effects for certain CodeGen
regression tests: if the datalayout is overridden with a datalayout with
a different program or stack address space, we now parse IR based on the
overridden datalayout, instead of the one written in the file (or the
default one, if none is specified). This broke a few AVR tests, and one
AMDGPU test.
Outside the CodeGen tests I mentioned, the test changes are all just
fixing CHECK lines and moving around datalayout lines in weird places.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78403
Fix the assumption that all bitcasts of the same type sizes are free.
We now only assume that bitcasts between ints and ptrs of the same
size are free. This allows TTImpl to just call the concrete
implementation of getCastInstrCost.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78918
The original patch (rG86dfbc676ebe) exposed an existing bug:
we could wrongly cast a constant expression to BinaryOperator
because the pattern matching allows that. This adds a check
for that case, and there's a reduced test case to verify no
crashing.
Original commit message:
This builds on the or-reduction bailout that was added with D67841.
We still do not have IR-level load combining, although that could
be a target-specific enhancement for -vector-combiner.
The heuristic is narrowly defined to catch the motivating case from
PR39538:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39538
...while preserving existing functionality.
That is, there's an unmodified test of pure load/zext/store that is
not seen in this patch at llvm/test/Transforms/SLPVectorizer/X86/cast.ll.
That's the reason for the logic difference to require the 'or'
instructions. The chances that vectorization would actually help a
memory-bound sequence like that seem small, but it looks nicer with:
vpmovzxwd (%rsi), %xmm0
vmovdqu %xmm0, (%rdi)
rather than:
movzwl (%rsi), %eax
movl %eax, (%rdi)
...
In the motivating test, we avoid creating a vector mess that is
unrecoverable in the backend, and SDAG forms the expected bswap
instructions after load combining:
movzbl (%rdi), %eax
vmovd %eax, %xmm0
movzbl 1(%rdi), %eax
vmovd %eax, %xmm1
movzbl 2(%rdi), %eax
vpinsrb $4, 4(%rdi), %xmm0, %xmm0
vpinsrb $8, 8(%rdi), %xmm0, %xmm0
vpinsrb $12, 12(%rdi), %xmm0, %xmm0
vmovd %eax, %xmm2
movzbl 3(%rdi), %eax
vpinsrb $1, 5(%rdi), %xmm1, %xmm1
vpinsrb $2, 9(%rdi), %xmm1, %xmm1
vpinsrb $3, 13(%rdi), %xmm1, %xmm1
vpslld $24, %xmm0, %xmm0
vpmovzxbd %xmm1, %xmm1 # xmm1 = xmm1[0],zero,zero,zero,xmm1[1],zero,zero,zero,xmm1[2],zero,zero,zero,xmm1[3],zero,zero,zero
vpslld $16, %xmm1, %xmm1
vpor %xmm0, %xmm1, %xmm0
vpinsrb $1, 6(%rdi), %xmm2, %xmm1
vmovd %eax, %xmm2
vpinsrb $2, 10(%rdi), %xmm1, %xmm1
vpinsrb $3, 14(%rdi), %xmm1, %xmm1
vpinsrb $1, 7(%rdi), %xmm2, %xmm2
vpinsrb $2, 11(%rdi), %xmm2, %xmm2
vpmovzxbd %xmm1, %xmm1 # xmm1 = xmm1[0],zero,zero,zero,xmm1[1],zero,zero,zero,xmm1[2],zero,zero,zero,xmm1[3],zero,zero,zero
vpinsrb $3, 15(%rdi), %xmm2, %xmm2
vpslld $8, %xmm1, %xmm1
vpmovzxbd %xmm2, %xmm2 # xmm2 = xmm2[0],zero,zero,zero,xmm2[1],zero,zero,zero,xmm2[2],zero,zero,zero,xmm2[3],zero,zero,zero
vpor %xmm2, %xmm1, %xmm1
vpor %xmm1, %xmm0, %xmm0
vmovdqu %xmm0, (%rsi)
movl (%rdi), %eax
movl 4(%rdi), %ecx
movl 8(%rdi), %edx
movbel %eax, (%rsi)
movbel %ecx, 4(%rsi)
movl 12(%rdi), %ecx
movbel %edx, 8(%rsi)
movbel %ecx, 12(%rsi)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78997
This builds on the or-reduction bailout that was added with D67841.
We still do not have IR-level load combining, although that could
be a target-specific enhancement for -vector-combiner.
The heuristic is narrowly defined to catch the motivating case from
PR39538:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39538
...while preserving existing functionality.
That is, there's an unmodified test of pure load/zext/store that is
not seen in this patch at llvm/test/Transforms/SLPVectorizer/X86/cast.ll.
That's the reason for the logic difference to require the 'or'
instructions. The chances that vectorization would actually help a
memory-bound sequence like that seem small, but it looks nicer with:
vpmovzxwd (%rsi), %xmm0
vmovdqu %xmm0, (%rdi)
rather than:
movzwl (%rsi), %eax
movl %eax, (%rdi)
...
In the motivating test, we avoid creating a vector mess that is
unrecoverable in the backend, and SDAG forms the expected bswap
instructions after load combining:
movzbl (%rdi), %eax
vmovd %eax, %xmm0
movzbl 1(%rdi), %eax
vmovd %eax, %xmm1
movzbl 2(%rdi), %eax
vpinsrb $4, 4(%rdi), %xmm0, %xmm0
vpinsrb $8, 8(%rdi), %xmm0, %xmm0
vpinsrb $12, 12(%rdi), %xmm0, %xmm0
vmovd %eax, %xmm2
movzbl 3(%rdi), %eax
vpinsrb $1, 5(%rdi), %xmm1, %xmm1
vpinsrb $2, 9(%rdi), %xmm1, %xmm1
vpinsrb $3, 13(%rdi), %xmm1, %xmm1
vpslld $24, %xmm0, %xmm0
vpmovzxbd %xmm1, %xmm1 # xmm1 = xmm1[0],zero,zero,zero,xmm1[1],zero,zero,zero,xmm1[2],zero,zero,zero,xmm1[3],zero,zero,zero
vpslld $16, %xmm1, %xmm1
vpor %xmm0, %xmm1, %xmm0
vpinsrb $1, 6(%rdi), %xmm2, %xmm1
vmovd %eax, %xmm2
vpinsrb $2, 10(%rdi), %xmm1, %xmm1
vpinsrb $3, 14(%rdi), %xmm1, %xmm1
vpinsrb $1, 7(%rdi), %xmm2, %xmm2
vpinsrb $2, 11(%rdi), %xmm2, %xmm2
vpmovzxbd %xmm1, %xmm1 # xmm1 = xmm1[0],zero,zero,zero,xmm1[1],zero,zero,zero,xmm1[2],zero,zero,zero,xmm1[3],zero,zero,zero
vpinsrb $3, 15(%rdi), %xmm2, %xmm2
vpslld $8, %xmm1, %xmm1
vpmovzxbd %xmm2, %xmm2 # xmm2 = xmm2[0],zero,zero,zero,xmm2[1],zero,zero,zero,xmm2[2],zero,zero,zero,xmm2[3],zero,zero,zero
vpor %xmm2, %xmm1, %xmm1
vpor %xmm1, %xmm0, %xmm0
vmovdqu %xmm0, (%rsi)
movl (%rdi), %eax
movl 4(%rdi), %ecx
movl 8(%rdi), %edx
movbel %eax, (%rsi)
movbel %ecx, 4(%rsi)
movl 12(%rdi), %ecx
movbel %edx, 8(%rsi)
movbel %ecx, 12(%rsi)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78997
The improvements to the x86 vector insert/extract element costs in D74976 resulted in the estimated costs for vector initialization and scalarization increasing higher than should be expected. This is particularly noticeable on pre-SSE4 targets where the available of legal INSERT_VECTOR_ELT ops is more limited.
This patch does 2 things:
1 - it implements X86TTIImpl::getScalarizationOverhead to more accurately represent the typical costs of a ISD::BUILD_VECTOR pattern.
2 - it adds a DemandedElts mask to getScalarizationOverhead to permit the SLP's BoUpSLP::getGatherCost to be rewritten to use it directly instead of accumulating raw vector insertion costs.
This fixes PR45418 where a v4i8 (zext'd to v4i32) was no longer vectorizing.
A future patch should extend X86TTIImpl::getScalarizationOverhead to tweak the EXTRACT_VECTOR_ELT scalarization costs as well.
Reviewed By: @craig.topper
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78216
Summary:
Currently, the internal options -vectorize-loops, -vectorize-slp, and
-interleave-loops do not have much practical effect. This is because
they are used to initialize the corresponding flags in the pass
managers, and those flags are then unconditionally overwritten when
compiling via clang or via LTO from the linkers. The only exception was
-vectorize-loops via opt because of some special hackery there.
While vectorization could still be disabled when compiling via clang,
using -fno-[slp-]vectorize, this meant that there was no way to disable
it when compiling in LTO mode via the linkers. This only affected
ThinLTO, since for regular LTO vectorization is done during the compile
step for scalability reasons. For ThinLTO it is invoked in the LTO
backends. See also the discussion on PR45434.
This patch makes it so the internal options can actually be used to
disable these optimizations. Ultimately, the best long term solution is
to mark the loops with metadata (similar to the approach used to fix
-fno-unroll-loops in D77058), but this enables a shorter term
workaround, and actually makes these internal options useful.
I constant propagated the initial values of these internal flags into
the pass manager flags (for some reasons vectorize-loops and
interleave-loops were initialized to true, while vectorize-slp was
initialized to false). As mentioned above, they are overwritten
unconditionally so this doesn't have any real impact, and these initial
values aren't particularly meaningful.
I then changed the passes to check the internl values and return without
performing the associated optimization when false (I changed the default
of -vectorize-slp to true so the options behave similarly). I was able
to remove the hackery in opt used to get -vectorize-loops=false to work,
as well as a special option there used to disable SLP vectorization.
Finally, I changed thinlto-slp-vectorize-pm.c to:
a) Only test SLP (moved the loop vectorization checking to a new test).
b) Use code that is slp vectorized when it is enabled, and check that
instead of whether the pass is enabled.
c) Test the new behavior of -vectorize-slp.
d) Test both pass managers.
The loop vectorization (and associated interleaving) testing I moved to
a new thinlto-loop-vectorize-pm.c test, with several changes:
a) Changed the flags on the interleaving testing so that it will
actually interleave, and check that.
b) Test the new behavior of -vectorize-loops and -interleave-loops.
c) Test both pass managers.
Reviewers: fhahn, wmi
Subscribers: hiraditya, steven_wu, dexonsmith, cfe-commits, davezarzycki, llvm-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D77989
This is similar to what I recently did for getArithmeticReductionCost.
I'm trying to account for the narrowing from 512->256->128 as we go.
I've also added a new helper method getMinMaxCost that tries to
handle the cases where we have native min/max instructions and
fall back to cmp+select when we don't.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D76634
This patch attempts to more accurately model the reduction of
power of 2 vectors of types we natively support. This takes into
account the narrowing of vectors that occur as we go from 512
bits to 256 bits, to 128 bits. It also takes into account the use
of wider elements in the shuffles for the first 2 steps of a
reduction from 128 bits. And uses a v8i16 shift for the final step
of vXi8 reduction.
The default implementation uses the legalized type for the arithmetic
for all levels. And uses the single source permute cost of the
legalized type for all levels. This penalizes things like
lack of v16i8 pshufb on pre-sse3 targets and the splitting and
joining that needs to be done for integer types on AVX1. We never
need v16i8 shuffle for a reduction and we only need split AVX1 ops
when type the type wide and needs to be split. I think we're still
over costing splits and joins for AVX1, but we're closer now.
I've also removed all pairwise special casing because I don't
think we ever want to generate that on X86. I've also adjusted
the add handling to more accurately account for any type splitting
that occurs before we reach a legal type.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D76478
This tries to improve the accuracy of extract/insert element costs by accounting for subvector extraction/insertion for >128-bit vectors and the shuffling of elements to/from the 0'th index.
It also adds INSERTPS for f32 types and PINSR/PEXTR costs for integer types (at the moment we assume the same cost as MOVD/MOVQ - which isn't always true).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D74976
D74976 will handle larger vector types, but since SLM doesn't support AVX+ then we will always be extracting from 128-bit vectors so don't need to scale the cost.
The index of an ExtractElementInst is not guaranteed to be a
ConstantInt. It can be any integer value. Check explicitly for
ConstantInts.
The new test cases illustrate scenarios where we crash without
this patch. I've also added another test case to check the matching
of extractelement vector ops works.
Reviewers: RKSimon, ABataev, dtemirbulatov, vporpo
Reviewed By: ABataev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D74758
We may calculate reassociable math ops in arbitrary order when creating a shuffle reduction,
so there's no guarantee that things like 'nsw' hold on those intermediate values. Drop all
poison-generating flags for safety.
This change is limited to shuffle reductions because I don't think we have a problem in the
general case (where we intersect flags of each scalar op that goes into a vector op), but if
there's evidence of other cases being wrong, we can extend this fix to cover those cases.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44536
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73727
