In IndVarSimplify after simplifying and extending loop IVs we call 'replaceCongruentIVs'.
This function optionally takes a TTI argument to be able to replace narrow IVs uses
with truncates of the widest one.
For some reason the TTI wasn't passed to the function, so it couldn't perform such
transform.
This patch fixes it.
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113024
Upon further investigation and discussion,
this is actually the opposite direction from what we should be taking,
and this direction wouldn't solve the motivational problem anyway.
Additionally, some more (polly) tests have escaped being updated.
So, let's just take a step back here.
This reverts commit f3190dedeef9da2109ea57e4cb372f295ff53b88.
This reverts commit 749581d21f2b3f53e4fca4eb8728c942d646893b.
This reverts commit f3df87d57e096143670e0fd396e81d43393a2dd2.
This reverts commit ab1dbcecd6f0969976fafd62af34730436ad5944.
Clang OpenMP codegen tests are failing.
This reverts commit 288f1f8abe5835180a0021f142043ee261ab3846.
This reverts commit cb90e5356ac1594e95fed8e208d6e0e9b6a87db1.
There's precedent for that in `CreateOr()`/`CreateAnd()`.
The motivation here is to avoid bloating the run-time check's IR
in `SCEVExpander::generateOverflowCheck()`.
Refs. https://reviews.llvm.org/D109368#3089809
It's a no-op, no overflow happens ever: https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/Zw89rZ
While generally i don't like such hacks,
we have a very good reason to do this: here we are expanding
a run-time correctness check for the vectorization,
and said `umul_with_overflow` will not be optimized out
before we query the cost of the checks we've generated.
Which means, the cost of run-time checks would be artificially inflated,
and after https://reviews.llvm.org/D109368 that will affect
the minimal trip count for which these checks are even evaluated.
And if they aren't even evaluated, then the vectorized code
certainly won't be run.
We could consider doing this in IRBuilder, but then we'd need to
also teach `CreateExtractValue()` to look into chain of `insertvalue`'s,
and i'm not sure there's precedent for that.
Refs. https://reviews.llvm.org/D109368#3089809
While we could emit such a tautological `select`,
it will stick around until the next instsimplify invocation,
which may happen after we count the cost of this redundant `select`.
Which is precisely what happens with loop vectorization legality checks,
and that artificially increases the cost of said checks,
which is bad.
There is prior art for this in `IRBuilderBase::CreateAnd()`/`IRBuilderBase::CreateOr()`.
Refs. https://reviews.llvm.org/D109368#3089809
Right now when we see -O# we add the corresponding 'default<O#>' into
the list of passes to run when translating legacy -pass-name. This has
the side effect of not using the default AA pipeline.
Instead, treat -O# as -passes='default<O#>', but don't allow any other
-passes or -pass-name. I think we can keep `opt -O#` as shorthand for
`opt -passes='default<O#>` but disallow anything more than just -O#.
Tests need to be updated to not use `opt -O# -pass-name`.
Reviewed By: asbirlea
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112036
This simplifies the return value of addRuntimeCheck from a pair of
instructions to a single `Value *`.
The existing users of addRuntimeChecks were ignoring the first element
of the pair, hence there is not reason to track FirstInst and return
it.
Additionally all users of addRuntimeChecks use the second returned
`Instruction *` just as `Value *`, so there is no need to return an
`Instruction *`. Therefore there is no need to create a redundant
dummy `and X, true` instruction any longer.
Effectively this change should not impact the generated code because the
redundant AND will be folded by later optimizations. But it is easy to
avoid creating it in the first place and it allows more accurately
estimating the cost of the runtime checks.
These cases use the same codegen as AVX2 (pshuflw/pshufd) for the sub-128bit vector deinterleaving, and unpcklqdq for v2i64.
It's going to take a while to add full interleaved cost coverage, but since these are the same for SSE2 -> AVX2 it should be an easy win.
Fixes PR47437
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111938
And another attempt to start untangling this ball of threads around gather.
There's `TTI::prefersVectorizedAddressing()`hoop, which confusingly defaults to `true`,
which tells LV to try to vectorize the addresses that lead to loads,
but X86 generally can not deal with vectors of addresses,
the only instructions that support that are GATHER/SCATTER,
but even those aren't available until AVX2, and aren't really usable until AVX512.
This specializes the hook for X86, to return true only if we have AVX512 or AVX2 w/ fast gather.
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111546
While i've modelled most of the relevant tuples for AVX2,
that only covered fully-interleaved groups.
By definition, interleaving load of stride N means:
load N*VF elements, and shuffle them into N VF-sized vectors,
with 0'th vector containing elements `[0, VF)*stride + 0`,
and 1'th vector containing elements `[0, VF)*stride + 1`.
Example: https://godbolt.org/z/df561Me5E (i64 stride 4 vf 2 => cost 6)
Now, not fully interleaved load, is when not all of these vectors is demanded.
So at worst, we could just pretend that everything is demanded,
and discard the non-demanded vectors. What this means is that the cost
for not-fully-interleaved group should be not greater than the cost
for the same fully-interleaved group, but perhaps somewhat less.
Examples:
https://godbolt.org/z/a78dK5Geq (i64 stride 4 (indices 012u) vf 2 => cost 4)
https://godbolt.org/z/G91ceo8dM (i64 stride 4 (indices 01uu) vf 2 => cost 2)
https://godbolt.org/z/5joYob9rx (i64 stride 4 (indices 0uuu) vf 2 => cost 1)
As we have established over the course of last ~70 patches, (wow)
`BaseT::getInterleavedMemoryOpCos()` is absolutely bogus,
it is usually almost an order of magnitude overestimation,
so i would claim that we should at least use the hardcoded costs
of fully interleaved load groups.
We could go further and adjust them e.g. by the number of demanded indices,
but then i'm somewhat fearful of underestimating the cost.
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111174
`X86TTIImpl::getGSScalarCost()` has (at least) two issues:
* it naively computes the cost of sequence of `insertelement`/`extractelement`.
If we are operating not on the XMM (but YMM/ZMM),
this widely overestimates the cost of subvector insertions/extractions.
* Gather/scatter takes a vector of pointers, and scalarization results in us performing
scalar memory operation for each of these pointers, but we never account for the cost
of extracting these pointers out of the vector of pointers.
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111222
This patch fixes another crash revealed by PR51614:
when *deciding* to vectorize with masked interleave groups, check if the access
is reverse (which is currently not supported).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108900
The only sched models that for cpu's that support avx2
but not avx512 are: haswell, broadwell, skylake, zen1-3
For load we have:
https://godbolt.org/z/n8aMKeo4E - for intels `Block RThroughput: =4.0`; for ryzens, `Block RThroughput: <=2.0`
So pick cost of `4`.
For store we have:
https://godbolt.org/z/n8aMKeo4E - for intels `Block RThroughput: =4.0`; for ryzens, `Block RThroughput: =2.0`
So pick cost of `4`.
I'm directly using the shuffling asm the llc produced,
without any manual fixups that may be needed
to ensure sequential execution.
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110755
The only sched models that for cpu's that support avx2
but not avx512 are: haswell, broadwell, skylake, zen1-3
For load we have:
https://godbolt.org/z/EM5Ean7bd - for intels `Block RThroughput: =2.0`; for ryzens, `Block RThroughput: =1.0`
So pick cost of `2`.
For store we have:
https://godbolt.org/z/EM5Ean7bd - for intels `Block RThroughput: =2.0`; for ryzens, `Block RThroughput: <=2.0`
So pick cost of `2`.
I'm directly using the shuffling asm the llc produced,
without any manual fixups that may be needed
to ensure sequential execution.
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110754
The only sched models that for cpu's that support avx2
but not avx512 are: haswell, broadwell, skylake, zen1-3
For load we have:
https://godbolt.org/z/4rY96hnGT - for intels `Block RThroughput: =2.0`; for ryzens, `Block RThroughput: =1.0`
So pick cost of `2`.
For store we have:
https://godbolt.org/z/vbo37Y3r9 - for intels `Block RThroughput: =1.0`; for ryzens, `Block RThroughput: =0.5`
So pick cost of `1`.
I'm directly using the shuffling asm the llc produced,
without any manual fixups that may be needed
to ensure sequential execution.
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110753
getScalarizationOverhead() results in a somewhat better cost estimation than counting the insertion/extraction costs directly. Notably, this is still overestimating the costs.
Original Patch by: @lebedev.ri (Roman Lebedev)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110713
Update the costs to match the codegen from combineMulToPMADDWD - not only can we use PMADDWD is its zero-extended, but also if its a constant or sign-extended from a vXi16 (which can be replaced with a zero-extension).
As we're checking the cost debug analysis these should match the original IR line - so we shouldn't have any variable naming issues.
I'm investigating v4i32 mul -> PMADDDW costs handling (for PR47437) and these CHECK lines were proving tricky to keep track of
Reverted (manually due to merge conflicts) while regressions reported on PR51540 are investigated
As noticed on D106352, after we've folded "(select C, (gep Ptr, Idx), Ptr) -> (gep Ptr, (select C, Idx, 0))" if the inner Ptr was also a (now one use) gep we could then merge the geps, using the sum of the indices instead.
I've limited this to basic 2-op geps - a more general case further down InstCombinerImpl.visitGetElementPtrInst doesn't have the one-use limitation but only creates the add if it can be created via SimplifyAddInst.
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/f8pLfD (Thanks Roman!)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106450
Teach LV to use masked-store to support interleave-store-group with
gaps (instead of scatters/scalarization).
The symmetric case of using masked-load to support
interleaved-load-group with gaps was introduced a while ago, by
https://reviews.llvm.org/D53668; This patch completes the store-scenario
leftover from D53668, and solves PR50566.
Reviewed by: Ayal Zaks
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104750
As noticed on D106352, after we've folded "(select C, (gep Ptr, Idx), Ptr) -> (gep Ptr, (select C, Idx, 0))" if the inner Ptr was also a (now one use) gep we could then merge the geps, using the sum of the indices instead.
I've limited this to basic 2-op geps - a more general case further down InstCombinerImpl.visitGetElementPtrInst doesn't have the one-use limitation but only creates the add if it can be created via SimplifyAddInst.
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/f8pLfD (Thanks Roman!)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106450
This fixes the lower and upper bound calculation of a
RuntimeCheckingPtrGroup when it has more than one loop
invariant pointers. Resolves PR50686.
Reviewed By: fhahn
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104148
Update (mainly) vXf32/vXf64 -> vXi8/vXi16 fptosi/fptoui costs based on the worst case costs from the script in D103695.
Move to using legalized types wherever possible, which allows us to prune the cost tables.
Revived D101297 in its original form + added some changes in X86
legalization cehcking for masked gathers.
This solution is the most stable and the most correct one. We have to
check the legality before trying to build the masked gather in SLP.
Without this check we have incorrect cost (for SLP) in case if the masked gather
is not legal/slower than the gather. And we're missing some
vectorization opportunities.
This can be fixed in the cost model, but in this case we need to add
special checks for the cost of GEPs for ScatterVectorize node, add
special check for small trees, etc., i.e. there are a lot of corner
cases here and there, which insrease code base and make it harder to
maintain the code.
> Can't we rely on cost model to deal with this? This can be profitable for futher vectorization, when we can start from such gather loads as seed.
The question from D101297. Actually, no, it can't. Actually, simple
gather may give us better result, especially after we started
vectorization of insertelements. Plus, like I said before, the cost for
non-legal masked gathers leads to missed vectorization opportunities.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105042
Update v4i64 -> v4f32/v4f64 uitofp costs based on the worst case costs from the script in D103695.
Fixes a few regressions before we start adding AVX costs for legalized types.
Sinking scalar operands into predicated-triangle regions may allow
merging regions. This patch adds a VPlan-to-VPlan transform that tries
to merge predicate-triangle regions after sinking.
Reviewed By: Ayal
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100260
A backedge-taken count doesn't refer to memory; returning a pointer type
is nonsense. So make sure we always return an integer.
The obvious way to do this would be to just convert the operands of the
icmp to integers, but that doesn't quite work out at the moment:
isLoopEntryGuardedByCond currently gets confused by ptrtoint operations.
So we perform the ptrtoint conversion late for lt/gt operations.
The test changes are mostly innocuous. The most interesting changes are
more complex SCEV expressions of the form "(-1 * (ptrtoint i8* %ptr to
i64)) + %ptr)". This is expected: we can't fold this to zero because we
need to preserve the pointer base.
The call to isLoopEntryGuardedByCond in howFarToZero is less precise
because of ptrtoint operations; this shows up in the function
pr46786_c26_char in ptrtoint.ll. Fixing it here would require more
complex refactoring. It should eventually be fixed by future
improvements to isImpliedCond.
See https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46786 for context.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103656
As noted in https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46666, the current behavior of assuming if-conversion safety if a loop is annotated parallel (`!llvm.loop.parallel_accesses`), is not expectable, the documentation for this behavior was since removed from the LangRef again, and can lead to invalid reads.
This was observed in POCL (https://github.com/pocl/pocl/issues/757) and would require similar workarounds in current work at hipSYCL.
The question remains why this was initially added and what the implications of removing this optimization would be.
Do we need an alternative mechanism to propagate the information about legality of if-conversion?
Or is the idea that conditional loads in `#pragma clang loop vectorize(assume_safety)` can be executed unmasked without additional checks flawed in general?
I think this implication is not part of what a user of that pragma (and corresponding metadata) would expect and thus dangerous.
Only two additional tests failed, which are adapted in this patch. Depending on the further direction force-ifcvt.ll should be removed or further adapted.
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103907
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
This is a patch that replaces shufflevector and insertelement's placeholder value with poison.
Underlying motivation is to fix the semantics of shufflevector with undef mask to return poison instead
(D93818)
The consensus has been made in the late 2020 via mailing list as well as the thread in https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44185 .
This patch is a simple syntactic change to the existing code, hence directly pushed as a commit.
