This patch changes these functions:
vectorizeLoadInsert
isExtractExtractCheap
foldExtractedCmps
scalarizeBinopOrCmp
getShuffleExtract
foldBitcastShuf
to use the class InstructionCost when calling TTI.get<something>Cost().
This patch is part of a series of patches to use InstructionCost instead of
unsigned/int for the cost model functions.
See this thread for context:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-November/146408.html
See this patch for the introduction of the type:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D91174
ps.:This patch adds the test || !NewCost.isValid(), because we want to
return false when:
!NewCost.isValid && !OldCost.isValid()->the cost to transform it expensive
and
!NewCost.isValid() && OldCost.isValid()
Therefore for simplication we only add test for !NewCost.isValid()
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94069
This is NFC-intended and another step towards supporting
intrinsics as reduction candidates.
The remaining bits of the OperationData class do not make
much sense as-is, so I will try to improve that, but I'm
trying to take minimal steps because it's still not clear
how this was intended to work.
This is another NFC-intended patch to allow matching
intrinsics (example: maxnum) as candidates for reductions.
It's possible that the loop/if logic can be reduced now,
but it's still difficult to understand how this all works.
To get into this block we had: !A || B || C
and we checked C in the first 'if' clause
leaving !A || B. But the 2nd 'if' is checking:
A && !B --> !(!A || B)
This is NFC-intended. I'm still trying to figure out
how the loop where this is used works. It does not
seem like we require this data at all, but it's
hard to confirm given the complicated predicates.
In the spirit of commit fc783e91e0c0696e (llvm-svn: 248943) we
shouldn't vectorize stores of non-packed types (i.e. types that
has padding between consecutive variables in a scalar layout,
but being packed in a vector layout).
The problem was detected as a miscompile in a downstream test case.
Reviewed By: anton-afanasyev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94446
This relates to the ongoing effort to support vectorization of multiple exit loops (see D93317).
The previous code assumed that LCSSA phis were always single entry before the vectorizer ran. This was correct, but only because the vectorizer allowed only a single exiting edge. There's nothing in the definition of LCSSA which requires single entry phis.
A common case where this comes up is with a loop with multiple exiting blocks which all reach a common exit block. (e.g. see the test updates)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93725
This patch unifies the way recipes and VPValues are printed after the
transition to VPDef.
VPSlotTracker has been updated to iterate over all recipes and all
their defined values to number those. There is no need to number
values in Value2VPValue.
It also updates a few places that only used slot numbers for
VPInstruction. All recipes now can produce numbered VPValues.
This patch is part of a series of patches that migrate integer
instruction costs to use InstructionCost. In the function
selectVectorizationFactor I have simply asserted that the cost
is valid and extracted the value as is. In future we expect
to encounter invalid costs, but we should filter out those
vectorization factors that lead to such invalid costs.
See this patch for the introduction of the type: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91174
See this thread for context: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-November/146408.html
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92178
A severe compile-time slowdown from this call is noted in:
https://llvm.org/PR48689
My naive fix was to put it under LLVM_DEBUG ( 267ff79 ),
but that's not limiting in the way we want.
This is a quick fix (or we could just remove the call completely
and rely on some later pass to discover potentially wrong IR?).
A bigger/better fix would be to improve/limit verifyFunction()
as noted in:
https://llvm.org/PR47712
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94328
Similar to D92129, update VPWidenPHIRecipe to manage the start value as
VPValue. This allows adjusting the start value as a VPlan transform,
which will be used in a follow-up patch to support reductions during
epilogue vectorization.
Reviewed By: gilr
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93975
This was suggested to prepare for D93975.
By moving the start value creation to widenPHInstruction, we set the
stage to manage the start value directly in VPWidenPHIRecipe, which be
used subsequently to set the 'resume' value for reductions during
epilogue vectorization.
It also moves RdxDesc to the recipe, so we do not have to rely on Legal
to look it up later.
Reviewed By: gilr
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94175
As noted in PR48689, the verifier may have some kind
of exponential behavior that should be addressed
separately. For now, only run it in debug mode to
prevent problems for release+asserts.
That limit is what we had before D80401, and I'm
not sure if there was a reason to change it in that
patch.
In the following loop:
void foo(int *a, int *b, int N) {
for (int i=0; i<N; ++i)
a[i + 4] = a[i] + b[i];
}
The loop dependence constrains the VF to a maximum of (4, fixed), which
would mean using <4 x i32> as the vector type in vectorization.
Extending this to scalable vectorization, a VF of (4, scalable) implies
a vector type of <vscale x 4 x i32>. To determine if this is legal
vscale must be taken into account. For this example, unless
max(vscale)=1, it's unsafe to vectorize.
For SVE, the number of bits in an SVE register is architecturally
defined to be a multiple of 128 bits with a maximum of 2048 bits, thus
the maximum vscale is 16. In the loop above it is therefore unfeasible
to vectorize with SVE. However, in this loop:
void foo(int *a, int *b, int N) {
#pragma clang loop vectorize_width(X, scalable)
for (int i=0; i<N; ++i)
a[i + 32] = a[i] + b[i];
}
As long as max(vscale) multiplied by the number of lanes 'X' doesn't
exceed the dependence distance, it is safe to vectorize. For SVE a VF of
(2, scalable) is within this constraint, since a vector of <16 x 2 x 32>
will have no dependencies between lanes. For any number of lanes larger
than this it would be unsafe to vectorize.
This patch extends 'computeFeasibleMaxVF' to legalize scalable VFs
specified as loop hints, implementing the following behaviour:
* If the backend does not support scalable vectors, ignore the hint.
* If scalable vectorization is unfeasible given the loop
dependence, like in the first example above for SVE, then use a
fixed VF.
* Accept scalable VFs if it's safe to do so.
* Otherwise, clamp scalable VFs that exceed the maximum safe VF.
Reviewed By: sdesmalen, fhahn, david-arm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91718
The new test case here contains a first order recurrences and an
instruction that is replicated. The first order recurrence forces an
instruction to be sunk _into_, as opposed to after the replication
region. That causes several things to go wrong including registering
vector instructions multiple times and failing to create dominance
relations correctly.
Instead we should be sinking to after the replication region, which is
what this patch makes sure happens.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93629
After merging the shuffles, we cannot rely on the previous shuffle
anymore and need to shrink the final shuffle, if it is required.
Reported in D92668
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93967
Similar to 5a1d31a28 -
This should be no-functional-change because the reduction kind
opcodes are 1-for-1 mappings to the instructions we are matching
as reductions. But we want to remove the need for the
`OperationData` opcode field because that does not work when
we start matching intrinsics (eg, maxnum) as reduction candidates.
This patch updates VPWidenIntOrFpInductionRecipe to hold the start value
for the induction variable. This makes the start value explicit and
allows for adjusting the start value for a VPlan.
The flexibility will be used in further patches.
Reviewed By: Ayal
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92129
This patch adds a new getLiveInIRValue accessor to VPValue, which
returns the underlying value, if the VPValue is defined outside of
VPlan. This is required to handle scalars in VPTransformState, which
requires dealing with scalars defined outside of VPlan.
We can simply check VPValue::Def to determine if the value is defined
inside a VPlan.
Reviewed By: Ayal
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92281
This patch makes SLP and LV emit operations with initial vectors set to poison constant instead of undef.
This is a part of efforts for using poison vector instead of undef to represent "doesn't care" vector.
The goal is to make nice shufflevector optimizations valid that is currently incorrect due to the tricky interaction between undef and poison (see https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44185 ).
Reviewed By: fhahn
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94061
This should be no-functional-change because the reduction kind
opcodes are 1-for-1 mappings to the instructions we are matching
as reductions. But we want to remove the need for the
`OperationData` opcode field because that does not work when
we start matching intrinsics (eg, maxnum) as reduction candidates.
SLP tries to model 2 forms of vector reductions: pairwise and splitting.
From the cost model code comments, those are defined using an example as:
/// Pairwise:
/// (v0, v1, v2, v3)
/// ((v0+v1), (v2+v3), undef, undef)
/// Split:
/// (v0, v1, v2, v3)
/// ((v0+v2), (v1+v3), undef, undef)
I don't know the full history of this functionality, but it was partly
added back in D29402. There are apparently no users at this point (no
regression tests change). X86 might have managed to work-around the need
for this through cost model and codegen improvements.
Removing this code makes it easier to continue the work that was started
in D87416 / D88193. The alternative -- if there is some target that is
silently using this option -- is to move this logic into LoopUtils. We
have related/duplicate functionality there via llvm::createTargetReduction().
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93860
Creating in-loop reductions relies on IR references to map
IR values to VPValues after interleave group creation.
Make sure we re-add the updated member to the plan, so the look-ups
still work as expected
This fixes a crash reported after D90562.
While here, rename the inaccurate getRecurrenceBinOp()
because that was also used to get CmpInst opcodes.
The recurrence/reduction kind should always refer to the
expected opcode for a reduction. SLP appears to be the
only direct caller of createSimpleTargetReduction(), and
that calling code ideally should not be carrying around
both an opcode and a reduction kind.
This should allow us to generalize reduction matching to
use intrinsics instead of only binops.
This is almost all mechanical search-and-replace and
no-functional-change-intended (NFC). Having a single
enum makes it easier to match/reason about the
reduction cases.
The goal is to remove `Opcode` from reduction matching
code in the vectorizers because that makes it harder to
adapt the code to handle intrinsics.
The code in RecurrenceDescriptor::AddReductionVar() is
the only place that required closer inspection. It uses
a RecurrenceDescriptor and a second InstDesc to sometimes
overwrite part of the struct. It seem like we should be
able to simplify that logic, but it's not clear exactly
which cmp+sel patterns that we are trying to handle/avoid.
If DoExtraAnalysis is true (e.g. because remarks are enabled), we
continue with the analysis rather than exiting. Update code to
conditionally check if the ExitBB has phis or not a single predecessor.
Otherwise a nullptr is dereferenced with DoExtraAnalysis.
