We currently collect the ICmp and Add from an induction variable,
marking them as dead so that vplan values are not created for them. This
extends that to include any single use trunk from the ICmp, which allows
the Add to more readily be removed too.
This can help with costing vplan nodes, as the ICmp and Add are more
reliably removed and are not double-counted.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88873
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:
Revert r325687 workaround for PR36032 since
a fix was committed in r326154.
Reviewers: sbaranga
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D44768
From: Evgeny Stupachenko <evstupac@gmail.com>
<evgeny.v.stupachenko@intel.com>
llvm-svn: 328257
Summary:
It turned out to be error-prone to expect the callers to handle that - better to
leave the decision to this routine and make the required data to be explicitly
passed to the function.
This handles the case that was missed in the r322473 and fixes the assert
mentioned in PR36524.
Reviewers: dorit, mssimpso, Ayal, dcaballe
Reviewed By: dcaballe
Subscribers: Ka-Ka, hiraditya, dneilson, hsaito, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43812
llvm-svn: 327960
