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
Sanjay Patel