This is a follow up to 924907bc6, and is mostly motivated by consistency
but does include one additional optimization. In general, we prefer 0.0
over -0.0 as the identity value for an fadd. We use that value in
several places, but don't in others. So, let's be consistent and use the
same identity (when nsz allows) everywhere.
This creates a bunch of test churn, but due to 924907bc6, most of that
churn doesn't actually indicate a change in codegen. The exception is
that this change enables the use of 0.0 for nsz, but *not* reasoc, fadd
reductions. Or said differently, it allows the neutral value of an
ordered fadd reduction to be 0.0.
This patch moves branch condition creation to enter the scalar epilogue
loop to VPlan. Modeling the branch in the middle block also requires
modeling the successor blocks. This is done using the recently
introduced VPIRBasicBlock.
Note that the middle.block is still created as part of the skeleton and
then patched in during VPlan execution. Unfortunately the skeleton needs
to create the middle.block early on, as it is also used for induction
resume value creation and is also needed to properly update the
dominator tree during skeleton creation.
After this patch lands, I plan to move induction resume value and phi
node creation in the scalar preheader to VPlan. Once that is done, we
should be able to create the middle.block in VPlan directly.
This is a re-worked version based on the earlier
https://reviews.llvm.org/D150398 and the main change is the use of
VPIRBasicBlock.
Depends on https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92525
PR: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92651
Use VPIRBasicBlock to wrap the middle block and implement patching up
branches in predecessors in VPIRBasicBlock::execute. The IR middle block
is only created after skeleton creation. Initially a regular
VPBasicBlock is created, which will later be replaced by a
VPIRBasicBlock once the middle IR basic block has been created.
Note that this slightly changes the order of instructions created in the
middle block; code generated by recipe execution in the middle block
will now be inserted before the terminator (and in between the compare
to used by the terminator). The original order will be restored in
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92651.
PR: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/95816
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
The vector reduction intrinsics started life as experimental ops, so backend support
was lacking. As part of promoting them to 1st-class intrinsics, however, codegen
support was added/improved:
D58015
D90247
So I think it is safe to now remove this complication from IR.
Note that we still have an IR-level codegen expansion pass for these as discussed
in D95690. Removing that is another step in simplifying the logic. Also note that
x86 was already unconditionally forming reductions in IR, so there should be no
difference for x86.
I spot checked a couple of the tests here by running them through opt+llc and did
not see any asm diffs.
If we do find functional differences for other targets, it should be possible
to (at least temporarily) restore the shuffle IR with the ExpandReductions IR
pass.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D96552
As mentioned in D93793, there are quite a few places where unary `IRBuilder::CreateShuffleVector(X, Mask)` can be used
instead of `IRBuilder::CreateShuffleVector(X, Undef, Mask)`.
Let's update them.
Actually, it would have been more natural if the patches were made in this order:
(1) let them use unary CreateShuffleVector first
(2) update IRBuilder::CreateShuffleVector to use poison as a placeholder value (D93793)
The order is swapped, but in terms of correctness it is still fine.
Reviewed By: spatel
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93923
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.
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.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78911
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
Summary:
This is a fix for PR23997.
The loop vectorizer is not preserving the inbounds property of GEPs that it creates.
This is inhibiting some optimizations. This patch preserves the inbounds property in
the case where a load/store is being fed by an inbounds GEP.
Reviewers: mkuper, javed.absar, hsaito
Reviewed By: hsaito
Subscribers: dcaballe, hsaito, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46191
llvm-svn: 331269
This is a slight reduction of one of the benchmarks
that suffered with D43079. Cost model changes should
not cause this test to remain scalarized.
llvm-svn: 326221
