The assert that caused this to be reverted should be fixed now.
Original commit message:
This patch changes our defualt legalization behavior for 16, 32, and
64 bit vectors with i8/i16/i32/i64 scalar types from promotion to
widening. For example, v8i8 will now be widened to v16i8 instead of
promoted to v8i16. This keeps the elements widths the same and pads
with undef elements. We believe this is a better legalization strategy.
But it carries some issues due to the fragmented vector ISA. For
example, i8 shifts and multiplies get widened and then later have
to be promoted/split into vXi16 vectors.
This has the potential to cause regressions so we wanted to get
it in early in the 10.0 cycle so we have plenty of time to
address them.
Next steps will be to merge tests that explicitly test the command
line option. And then we can remove the option and its associated
code.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@368183 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This patch changes our defualt legalization behavior for 16, 32, and
64 bit vectors with i8/i16/i32/i64 scalar types from promotion to
widening. For example, v8i8 will now be widened to v16i8 instead of
promoted to v8i16. This keeps the elements widths the same and pads
with undef elements. We believe this is a better legalization strategy.
But it carries some issues due to the fragmented vector ISA. For
example, i8 shifts and multiplies get widened and then later have
to be promoted/split into vXi16 vectors.
This has the potential to cause regressions so we wanted to get
it in early in the 10.0 cycle so we have plenty of time to
address them.
Next steps will be to merge tests that explicitly test the command
line option. And then we can remove the option and its associated
code.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@367901 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Before combining insert_subvector(insert_subvector(vec, sub0, c0), sub1, c1) patterns, ensure that the subvectors are all the same type. On AVX512 targets especially we might have a mixture of 128/256 subvector insertions.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@367429 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
PR42819 showed an issue that we couldn't handle the case where we demanded a 'sub-sub-vector' of the SUBV_BROADCAST 'sub-vector' source.
This patch recognizes these cases and extracts the sub-sub-vector instead of trying to broadcast to a type smaller than the 'sub-vector' source.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@367306 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
The build_vector will become a constant pool load. By using the
desired type initially, it ensures we don't generate a bitcast
of the constant pool load which will need to be folded with
the load.
While experimenting with another patch, I noticed that when the
load type and the constant pool type don't match, then
SimplifyDemandedBits can't handle it. While we should probably
fix that, this was a simple way to fix the issue I saw.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@366732 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This shows up as a side issue to the main problem for the AVX target example from PR37428:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37428 - https://godbolt.org/z/7tpRa3
But as we can see in the pile of existing test diffs, it's actually a widespread problem
that affects any AVX or later target. Apart from a couple of oddballs, I think these are
all improvements for the reasons stated in the code comment: we do not want to enable YMM
unnecessarily (avoid vzeroupper and frequency throttling) and some cores split 256-bit
stores anyway.
We could say that MergeConsecutiveStores() is going overboard on some of these examples,
but that won't solve the problem completely. But that is a reason I'm proposing this as
a lowering rather than a combine: we will infinite loop fighting the merge code if we try
this earlier.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62498
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@362524 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This shows up as a side issue to the main problem for the AVX target example from PR37428:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37428 - https://godbolt.org/z/7tpRa3
But as we can see in the pile of existing test diffs, it's actually a widespread problem
that affects any AVX or later target. Apart from a couple of oddballs, I think these are
all improvements for the reasons stated in the code comment: we do not want to enable YMM
unnecessarily (avoid vzeroupper and frequency throttling) and some cores split 256-bit
stores anyway.
We could say that MergeConsecutiveStores() is going overboard on some of these examples,
but that won't solve the problem completely. But that is the reason I'm proposing this as
a lowering rather than a combine: we will infinite loop fighting the merge code if we try
this earlier.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62498
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@361822 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Craig Topper