At the moment, the primary induction variable for the vector loop is
created as part of the skeleton creation. This is tied to creating the
vector loop latch outside of VPlan. This prevents from modeling the
*whole* vector loop in VPlan, which in turn is required to model
preheader and exit blocks in VPlan as well.
This patch introduces a new recipe VPCanonicalIVPHIRecipe to represent the
primary IV in VPlan and CanonicalIVIncrement{NUW} opcodes for
VPInstruction to model the increment.
This allows us to partly retire createInductionVariable. At the moment,
a bit of patching up is done after executing all blocks in the plan.
Reviewed By: Ayal
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113223
VPWidenCanonicalIVRecipe does not create PHI instructions, so it does
not need to be placed in the phi section of a VPBasicBlock.
Also tidies the code so the WidenCanonicalIV recipe and the
compare/lane-masks are created in the header.
Discussed D113223.
Reviewed By: Ayal
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116473
By creating the header and latch blocks up front and adding blocks and
recipes in between those 2 blocks we ensure that the entry and exits of
the plan remain valid throughout construction.
In order to avoid test changes and keep printing of the plans the same,
we use the new header block instead of creating a new block on the first
iteration of the loop traversing the original loop.
We also fold the latch into its predecessor.
This is a follow up to a post-commit suggestion in D114586.
Reviewed By: Ayal
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115793
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 patch updates IRBuilder to create insertelement/shufflevector using poison as a placeholder.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93793
