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
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
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.
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 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
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.
I don't know if there's some way this changes what the vectorizers
may produce for reductions, but I have added test coverage with
3567908 and 5ced712 to show that both passes already have bugs in
this area. Hopefully this does not make things worse before we can
really fix it.
I'm not sure if the SLP enum was created before the IVDescriptor
RecurrenceDescriptor / RecurrenceKind existed, but the code in
SLP is now redundant with that class, so it just makes things
more complicated to have both. We eventually call LoopUtils
createSimpleTargetReduction() to create reduction ops, so we
might as well standardize on those enum names.
There's still a question of whether we need to use TTI::ReductionFlags
vs. MinMaxRecurrenceKind, but that can be another clean-up step.
Another option would just be to flatten the enums in RecurrenceDescriptor
into a single enum. There isn't much benefit (smaller switches?) to
having a min/max subset.
I am hoping to extend the reduction matching code, and it is
hard to distinguish "ReductionData" from "ReducedValueData".
So extend the tree/root metaphor to include leaves.
Another problem is that the name "OperationData" does not
provide insight into its purpose. I'm not sure if we can alter
that underlying data structure to make the code clearer.
I think this is NFC currently, but the bug would be exposed
when we allow binary intrinsics (maxnum, etc) as candidates
for reductions.
The code in matchAssociativeReduction() is using
OperationData::getNumberOfOperands() when comparing whether
the "EdgeToVisit" iterator is in-bounds, so this code must
use the same (potentially offset) operand value to set
the "EdgeToVisit".
An earlier patch introduced asserts that the InstructionCost is
valid because at that time the ReuseShuffleCost variable was an
unsigned. However, now that the variable is an InstructionCost
instance the asserts can be removed.
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
This patch changes the type of cost variables (for instance: Cost, ExtractCost,
SpillCost) to use InstructionCost.
This patch also changes the type of cost variables to InstructionCost in other
functions that use the result of getTreeCost()
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
Depends on D91174
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93049
D82227 has added a proper check to limit PHI vectorization to the
maximum vector register size. That unfortunately resulted in at
least a couple of regressions on SystemZ and x86.
This change reverts PHI handling from D82227 and replaces it with
a more general check in SLPVectorizerPass::tryToVectorizeList().
Moved to tryToVectorizeList() it allows to restart vectorization
if initial chunk fails.
However, this function is more general and handles not only PHI
but everything which SLP handles. If vectorization factor would
be limited to maximum vector register size it would limit much
more vectorization than before leading to further regressions.
Therefore a new TTI callback getMaximumVF() is added with the
default 0 to preserve current behavior and limit nothing. Then
targets can decide what is better for them.
The callback gets ElementSize just like a similar getMinimumVF()
function and the main opcode of the chain. The latter is to avoid
regressions at least on the AMDGPU. We can have loads and stores
up to 128 bit wide, and <2 x 16> bit vector math on some
subtargets, where the rest shall not be vectorized. I.e. we need
to differentiate based on the element size and operation itself.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92059
Vector element size could be different for different store chains.
This patch prevents wrong computation of maximum number of elements
for that case.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93192
This is the first in a series of patches that attempts to migrate
existing cost instructions to return a new InstructionCost class
in place of a simple integer. This new class is intended to be
as light-weight and simple as possible, with a full range of
arithmetic and comparison operators that largely mirror the same
sets of operations on basic types, such as integers. The main
advantage to using an InstructionCost is that it can encode a
particular cost state in addition to a value. The initial
implementation only has two states - Normal and Invalid - but these
could be expanded over time if necessary. An invalid state can
be used to represent an unknown cost or an instruction that is
prohibitively expensive.
This patch adds the new class and changes the getInstructionCost
interface to return the new class. Other cost functions, such as
getUserCost, etc., will be migrated in future patches as I believe
this to be less disruptive. One benefit of this new class is that
it provides a way to unify many of the magic costs in the codebase
where the cost is set to a deliberately high number to prevent
optimisations taking place, e.g. vectorization. It also provides
a route to represent the extremely high, and unknown, cost of
scalarization of scalable vectors, which is not currently supported.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91174
For stores chain vectorization we choose the size of vector
elements to ensure we fit to minimum and maximum vector register
size for the number of elements given. This patch corrects vector
element size choosing the width of value truncated just before
storing instead of the width of value stored.
Fixes PR46983
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92824
It is possible to merge reuse and reorder shuffles and reduce the total
cost of the ivectorization tree/number of final instructions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92668
This might be a small improvement in readability, but the
real motivation is to make it easier to adapt the code to
deal with intrinsics like 'maxnum' and/or integer min/max.
There is potentially help in doing that with D92086, but
we might also just add specialized wrappers here to deal
with the expected patterns.
This patch replaces the attribute `unsigned VF` in the class
IntrinsicCostAttributes by `ElementCount VF`.
This is a non-functional change to help upcoming patches to compute the cost
model for scalable vector inside this class.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91532
