This adds a helper to convert a VPRecipeBase pointer to a VPUser, for
recipes that inherit from VPUser. Once VPRecipeBase directly inherits
from VPUser this helper can be removed.
When updating operands of a VPUser, we also have to adjust the list of
users for the new and old VPValues. This is required once we start
transitioning recipes to become VPValues.
Now that VPUser is not inheriting from VPValue, we can take the next
step and turn the recipes that already manage their operands via VPUser
into VPUsers directly. This is another small step towards traversing
def-use chains in VPlan.
This is NFC with respect to the generated code, but makes the interface
more powerful.
These were only really used for 2 things. One was to check if the operand matches the phi if it exists. The other was for the createOp method to build the reduction.
For the first case we still have the operation we just need to know how to index its operands. So I've modified getLHS/getRHS to just use the opcode/kind to know how to find the right operands on an instruction that is now passed in.
For the other case we had to create an OperationData object to set the LHS/RHS values and copy the opcode/kind from another object. We would then just call createOp on that temporary object. Instead I've made LHS/RHS arguments to createOp and removed all these temporary objects.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88193
All of the callers already have an Instruction *. Many of them
from a dyn_cast.
Also update the OperationData constructor to use a Instruction&
to remove a dyn_cast and make it clear that the pointer is non-null.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88132
This refactors VPuser to not inherit from VPValue to facilitate
introducing operations that introduce multiple VPValues (e.g.
VPInterleaveRecipe).
Reviewed By: Ayal
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84679
This provides a convenient way to print VPValues and recipes in a
debugger. In particular it saves the user from instantiating
VPSlotTracker to print recipes or values.
The implementation of gather() should be reduced too,
but this change by itself makes things a little clearer:
we don't try to gather to a different type or
number-of-values than whatever is passed in as the value
list itself.
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
As discussed in:
https://llvm.org/PR47558
...there are several potential fixes/follow-ups visible
in the test case, but this is the quickest and safest
fix of the perf regression.
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
~~D65060 uncovered that trying to use BFI in loop passes can lead to non-deterministic behavior when blocks are re-used while retaining old BFI data.~~
~~To make sure BFI is preserved through loop passes a Value Handle (VH) callback is registered on blocks themselves. When a block is freed it now also wipes out the accompanying BFI entry such that stale BFI data can no longer persist resolving the determinism issue. ~~
~~An optimistic approach would be to incrementally update BFI information throughout the loop passes rather than only invalidating them on removed blocks. The issues with that are:~~
~~1. It is not clear how BFI information should be incrementally updated: If a block is duplicated does its BFI information come with? How about if it's split/modified/moved around? ~~
~~2. Assuming we can address these problems the implementation here will be a massive undertaking. ~~
~~There's a known need of BFI in LICM analysis which requires correct but not incrementally updated BFI data. A follow-up change can register BFI in all loop passes so this preserved but potentially lossy data is available to any loop pass that wants it.~~
See: D75341 for an identical implementation of preserving BFI via VH callbacks. The previous statements do still apply but this change no longer has to be in this diff because it's already upstream 😄 .
This diff also moves BFI to be a part of LoopStandardAnalysisResults since the previous method using getCachedResults now (correctly!) statically asserts (D72893) that this data isn't static through the loop passes.
Testing
Ninja check
Reviewed By: asbirlea, nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86156
For scalable type, the aggregated size is unknown at compile-time.
Skip instructions with scalable type to ensure the list of instructions
for vectorizeSimpleInstructions does not contains any scalable-vector instructions.
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87550
Similar to the tsan suppression in
`Utils/VNCoercion.cpp:getLoadLoadClobberFullWidthSize` (rL175034; load widening used by GVN),
the D81766 optimization should be suppressed under tsan due to potential
spurious data race reports:
struct A {
int i;
const short s; // the load cannot be vectorized because
int modify; // it overlaps with bytes being concurrently modified
long pad1, pad2;
};
// __tsan_read16 does not know that some bytes are undef and accessing is safe
Similarly, under asan, users can mark memory regions with
`__asan_poison_memory_region`. A widened load can lead to a spurious
use-after-poison error. hwasan/memtag should be similarly suppressed.
`mustSuppressSpeculation` suppresses asan/hwasan/tsan but not memtag, so
we need to exclude memtag in `vectorizeLoadInsert`.
Note, memtag suppression can be relaxed if the load is aligned to the
its granule (usually 16), but that is out of scope of this patch.
Reviewed By: spatel, vitalybuka
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87538
Forward declare AAResults instead of the (old) AliasAnalysis type.
Remove includes from SLPVectorizer.cpp that are already included in SLPVectorizer.h.
This allows the backend to tell the vectorizer to produce inloop
reductions through a TTI hook.
For the moment on ARM under MVE this means allowing integer add
reductions of the correct size. In the future this can include integer
min/max too, under -Os.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D75512
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.
First, shuffle cost for scalable type is not known for scalable type;
Second, we cannot reason if the narrowed shuffle mask for scalable type
is a splat or not.
E.g., Bitcast splat vector from type <vscale x 4 x i32> to <vscale x 8 x i16>
will involve narrowing shuffle mask <vscale x 4 x i32> zeroinitializer to
<vscale x 8 x i32> with element sequence of <0, 1, 0, 1, ...>, which cannot be
reasoned if it's a valid splat or not.
Reviewed By: spatel
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86995
This is an enhancement to D81766 to allow loading the minimum target
vector type into an IR vector with a different number of elements.
In one of the motivating tests from PR16739, SLP creates <2 x float>
load ops mixed with <4 x float> insert ops, so we want to handle that
pattern in addition to potential oversized vectors created by the
vectorizers.
For now, we are assuming the insert/extract subvector with undef is
free because there is no exact corresponding TTI modeling for that.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86160
Interleave for small loops that have reductions inside,
which breaks dependencies and expose.
This gives very significant performance improvements for some benchmarks.
Because small loops could be in very hot functions in real applications.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D81416
addRuntimeChecks uses SCEVExpander, which relies on the DT/LoopInfo to
be up-to-date. Changing the CFG afterwards may invalidate some inserted
instructions, especially LCSSA phis.
Reorder the code to first update the CFG and then create the runtime
checks. This should not have any impact on the generated code, as we
adjust the CFG and generate runtime checks together.
Fixes PR47343.
As discussed in D86798, it's not clear if the caller code
works with a more liberal definition of "commutative" that
includes intrinsics like min/max. This makes the binop
restriction (current functionality is unchanged) explicit
until the code is audited/tested.
