I'm renaming the flag because a future patch will add a new
enableOrderedReductions() TTI interface and so the meaning of this
flag will change to be one of forcing the target to enable/disable
them. Also, since other places in LoopVectorize.cpp use the word
'Ordered' instead of 'strict' I changed the flag to match.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107264
This patch updates VPInterleaveRecipe::print to print the actual defined
VPValues for load groups and the store VPValue operands for store
groups.
The IR references may become outdated while transforming the VPlan and
the defined and stored VPValues always are up-to-date.
Reviewed By: Ayal
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107223
Replace insertelement instructions for splats with just single
insertelement + broadcast shuffle. Also, try to merge these instructions
if they come from the same/shuffled gather node.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107104
For the nodes with reused scalars the user may be not only of the size
of the final shuffle but also of the size of the scalars themselves,
need to check for this. It is safe to just modify the check here, since
the order of the scalars themselves is preserved, only indeces of the
reused scalars are changed. So, the users with the same size as the
number of scalars in the node, will not be affected, they still will get
the operands in the required order.
Reported by @mstorsjo in D105020.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107080
If the instruction was previously deleted, it should not be treated as
an external user. This fixes cost estimation and removes dead
extractelement instructions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107106
Need to check that the minimum acceptable vector factor is at least 2,
not 0, to avoid compiler crash during gathered loads analysis.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107058
Reworked reordering algorithm. Originally, the compiler just tried to
detect the most common order in the reordarable nodes (loads, stores,
extractelements,extractvalues) and then fully rebuilding the graph in
the best order. This was not effecient, since it required an extra
memory and time for building/rebuilding tree, double the use of the
scheduling budget, which could lead to missing vectorization due to
exausted scheduling resources.
Patch provide 2-way approach for graph reodering problem. At first, all
reordering is done in-place, it doe not required tree
deleting/rebuilding, it just rotates the scalars/orders/reuses masks in
the graph node.
The first step (top-to bottom) rotates the whole graph, similarly to the previous
implementation. Compiler counts the number of the most used orders of
the graph nodes with the same vectorization factor and then rotates the
subgraph with the given vectorization factor to the most used order, if
it is not empty. Then repeats the same procedure for the subgraphs with
the smaller vectorization factor. We can do this because we still need
to reshuffle smaller subgraph when buildiong operands for the graph
nodes with lasrger vectorization factor, we can rotate just subgraph,
not the whole graph.
The second step (bottom-to-top) scans through the leaves and tries to
detect the users of the leaves which can be reordered. If the leaves can
be reorder in the best fashion, they are reordered and their user too.
It allows to remove double shuffles to the same ordering of the operands in
many cases and just reorder the user operations instead. Plus, it moves
the final shuffles closer to the top of the graph and in many cases
allows to remove extra shuffle because the same procedure is repeated
again and we can again merge some reordering masks and reorder user nodes
instead of the operands.
Also, patch improves cost model for gathering of loads, which improves
x264 benchmark in some cases.
Gives about +2% on AVX512 + LTO (more expected for AVX/AVX2) for {625,525}x264,
+3% for 508.namd, improves most of other benchmarks.
The compile and link time are almost the same, though in some cases it
should be better (we're not doing an extra instruction scheduling
anymore) + we may vectorize more code for the large basic blocks again
because of saving scheduling budget.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105020
As suggested in D105008, move the code that fixes up the backedge value
for first order recurrences to VPlan::execute.
Now all that remains in fixFirstOrderRecurrences is the code responsible
for creating the exit values in the middle block.
Reviewed By: Ayal
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106244
This makes a couple of changes to the costing of MLA reduction patterns,
to more accurately cost various patterns that can come up from
vectorization.
- The Arm implementation of getExtendedAddReductionCost is altered to
only provide costs for legal or smaller types. Larger than legal types
need to be split, which currently does not work very well, especially
for predicated reductions where the predicate may be legal but needs to
be split. Currently we limit it to legal or smaller input types.
- The getReductionPatternCost has learnt that reduce(ext(mul(ext, ext))
is a pattern that can come up, and can be treated the same as
reduce(mul(ext, ext)) providing the extension types match.
- And it has been adjusted to not count the ext in reduce(mul(ext, ext))
as part of a reduce(mul) pattern.
Together these changes help to more accurately cost the mla reductions
in cases such as where the extend types don't match or the extend
opcodes are different, picking better vector factors that don't result
in expanded reductions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106166
Consider the following loop:
void foo(float *dst, float *src, int N) {
for (int i = 0; i < N; i++) {
dst[i] = 0.0;
for (int j = 0; j < N; j++) {
dst[i] += src[(i * N) + j];
}
}
}
When we are not building with -Ofast we may attempt to vectorise the
inner loop using ordered reductions instead. In addition we also try
to select an appropriate interleave count for the inner loop. However,
when choosing a VF=1 the inner loop will be scalar and there is existing
code in selectInterleaveCount that limits the interleave count to 2
for reductions due to concerns about increasing the critical path.
For ordered reductions this problem is even worse due to the additional
data dependency, and so I've added code to simply disable interleaving
for scalar ordered reductions for now.
Test added here:
Transforms/LoopVectorize/AArch64/strict-fadd-vf1.ll
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106646
The loop vectorizer may decide to use tail folding when the trip-count
is low. When that happens, scalable VFs are no longer a candidate,
since tail folding/predication is not yet supported for scalable vectors.
This can be re-enabled in a future patch.
Reviewed By: kmclaughlin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106657
Invalid costs can be used to avoid vectorization with a given VF, which is
used for scalable vectors to avoid things that the code-generator cannot
handle. If we override the cost using the -force-target-instruction-cost
option of the LV, we would override this mechanism, rendering the flag useless.
This change ensures the cost is only overriden when the original cost that
was calculated is valid. That allows the flag to be used in combination
with the -scalable-vectorization option.
Reviewed By: david-arm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106677
Scalarization for scalable vectors is not (yet) supported, so the
LV discards a VF when scalarization is chosen as the widening
decision. It should therefore not assert that the VF is not scalable
when it computes the decision to scalarize.
The code can get here when both the interleave-cost, gather/scatter cost
and scalarization-cost are all illegal. This may e.g. happen for SVE
when the VF=1, to avoid generating `<vscale x 1 x eltty>` types that
the code-generator cannot yet handle.
Reviewed By: david-arm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106656
This fixes an issue that was found in D105199, where a GEP instruction
is used both as the address of a store, as well as the value of a store.
For the former, the value is scalar after vectorization, but the latter
(as value) requires widening.
Other code in that function seems to prevent similar cases from happening,
but it seems this case was missed.
Reviewed By: david-arm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106164
This reverts the revert commit b1777b04dc.
The patch originally got reverted due to a crash:
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1232798#c2
The underlying issue was that we were not using the stored values from
the modified memory recipes, but the out-of-date values directly from
the IR (accessed via the VPlan). This should be fixed in d995d6376. A
reduced version of the reproducer has been added in 93664503be.
Need to fix several cost-related problems. The final type may be defined
incorrectly because of to early definition (we may end up with the wider
type), the CommonCost should not be redefined in ExtractElements
cost related calculations and the shuffle of the final insertelements
vectors should be calculated as a cost of single vector permutations
+ costs of two vector permutations for other n-1 incoming vectors.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106578
Fixes more casts to `<FixedVectorType>` for the cases where the
instruction is a Insert/ExtractElementInst.
For fixed-width, this part of truncateToMinimalBitWidths is tested by
AArch64/type-shrinkage-insertelt.ll. I attempted to write a test case for this part
of truncateToMinimalBitWidths which uses scalable vectors, but was unable to add
one. The tests in type-shrinkage-insertelt.ll rely on scalarization to create extract
element instructions for instance, which is not possible for scalable vectors.
Reviewed By: david-arm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106163
Need to fix several cost-related problems. The final type may be defined
incorrectly because of to early definition (we may end up with the wider
type), the CommonCost should not be redefined in ExtractElements
cost related calculations and the shuffle of the final insertelements
vectors should be calculated as a cost of single vector permutations
+ costs of two vector permutations for other n-1 incoming vectors.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106578
Instead of getting the VPValue for the stored IR values through the
current plan, use the stored value of the recipes directly.
This way, the correct VPValues are used if the store recipes have been
modified in the VPlan and the IR value is not correct any longer. This
can happen, e.g. due to D105008.
I have added a new FastMathFlags parameter to getArithmeticReductionCost
to indicate what type of reduction we are performing:
1. Tree-wise. This is the typical fast-math reduction that involves
continually splitting a vector up into halves and adding each
half together until we get a scalar result. This is the default
behaviour for integers, whereas for floating point we only do this
if reassociation is allowed.
2. Ordered. This now allows us to estimate the cost of performing
a strict vector reduction by treating it as a series of scalar
operations in lane order. This is the case when FP reassociation
is not permitted. For scalable vectors this is more difficult
because at compile time we do not know how many lanes there are,
and so we use the worst case maximum vscale value.
I have also fixed getTypeBasedIntrinsicInstrCost to pass in the
FastMathFlags, which meant fixing up some X86 tests where we always
assumed the vector.reduce.fadd/mul intrinsics were 'fast'.
New tests have been added here:
Analysis/CostModel/AArch64/reduce-fadd.ll
Analysis/CostModel/AArch64/sve-intrinsics.ll
Transforms/LoopVectorize/AArch64/strict-fadd-cost.ll
Transforms/LoopVectorize/AArch64/sve-strict-fadd-cost.ll
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105432
This patch avoids computing discounts for predicated instructions when the
VF is scalable.
There is no support for vectorization of loops with division because the
vectorizer cannot guarantee that zero divisions will not happen.
This loop now does not use VF scalable
```
for (long long i = 0; i < n; i++)
if (cond[i])
a[i] /= b[i];
```
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101916
Currently the Instruction cost of getReductionPatternCost returns an
Invalid cost to specify "did not find the pattern". This changes that to
return an Optional with None specifying not found, allowing Invalid to
mean an infinite cost as is used elsewhere.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106140
This patch removes the assertion when VF is scalable and replaces
getKnownMinValue() by getFixedValue(), so it still guards the code against
scalable vector types.
The assertions were used to guarantee that getknownMinValue were not used for
scalable vectors.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106359
This patch adds a VPFirstOrderRecurrencePHIRecipe, to further untangle
VPWidenPHIRecipe into distinct recipes for distinct use cases/lowering.
See D104989 for a new recipe for reduction phis.
This patch also introduces a new `FirstOrderRecurrenceSplice`
VPInstruction opcode, which is used to make the forming of the vector
recurrence value explicit in VPlan. This more accurately models def-uses
in VPlan and also simplifies code-generation. Now, the vector recurrence
values are created at the right place during VPlan-codegeneration,
rather than during post-VPlan fixups.
Reviewed By: Ayal
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105008
The incoming values for PHI nodes may come from unreachable BasicBlocks,
need to handle this case.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106264
Part of D105020. Also, fixed FIXMEs that need to use wider vector type
when trying to calculate the cost of reused scalars. This may cause
regressions unless D100486 is landed to improve the cost estimations
for long vectors shuffling.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106060
The cost of the InsertSubvector shuffle kind cost is not complete and
may end up with just extracts + inserts costs in many cases. Added
a workaround to represent it as a generic PermuteSingleSrc, which is
still pessimistic but better than InsertSubvector.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105827
This patch returns an Invalid cost from getInstructionCost() for alloca
instructions if the VF is scalable, as otherwise loops which contain
these instructions will crash when attempting to scalarize the alloca.
Reviewed By: sdesmalen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105824
The original patch was:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D105806
There were some issues with undeterministic behaviour of the sorting
function, which led to scalable-call.ll passing and/or failing. This
patch fixes the issue by numbering all instructions in the array first,
and using that number as the order, which should provide a consistent
ordering.
This reverts commit a607f64118.
This bug was introduced with D105730 / 25ee55c0ba .
If we are not converting all of the operations of a reduction
into a vector op, we need to preserve the existing select form
of the remaining ops. Otherwise, we are potentially leaking
poison where it did not in the original code.
Alive2 agrees that the version that freezes some inputs
and then falls back to scalar is correct:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/erF4K2
This change enables vectorization of multiple exit loops when the exit count is statically computable. That requirement - shared with the rest of LV - in turn requires each exit to be analyzeable and to dominate the latch.
The majority of work to support this was done in a set of previous patches. In particular,, 72314466 avoids having multiple edges from the middle block to the exits, and 4b33b2387 which added support for non-latch single exit and multiple exits with a single exiting block. As a result, this change is basically just removing a bailout and adjusting some tests now that the prerequisite work is done and has stuck in tree for a bit.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105817
The sort function for emitting an OptRemark was not deterministic,
which caused scalable-call.ll to fail on some buildbots. This patch
fixes that.
This patch also fixes an issue where `Instruction::comesBefore()`
is called when two Instructions are in different basic blocks,
which would otherwise cause an assertion failure.
This patch emits remarks for instructions that have invalid costs for
a given set of vectorization factors. Some example output:
t.c:4:19: remark: Instruction with invalid costs prevented vectorization at VF=(vscale x 1): load
dst[i] = sinf(src[i]);
^
t.c:4:14: remark: Instruction with invalid costs prevented vectorization at VF=(vscale x 1, vscale x 2, vscale x 4): call to llvm.sin.f32
dst[i] = sinf(src[i]);
^
t.c:4:12: remark: Instruction with invalid costs prevented vectorization at VF=(vscale x 1): store
dst[i] = sinf(src[i]);
^
Reviewed By: fhahn, kmclaughlin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105806
The cost of the InsertSubvector shuffle kind cost is not complete and
may end up with just extracts + inserts costs in many cases. Added
a workaround to represent it as a generic PermuteSingleSrc, which is
still pessimistic but better than InsertSubvector.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105827
This has been a work-in-progress for a long time...we finally have all of
the pieces in place to handle vectorization of compare code as shown in:
https://llvm.org/PR41312
To do this (see PhaseOrdering tests), we converted SimplifyCFG and
InstCombine to the poison-safe (select) forms of the logic ops, so now we
need to have SLP recognize those patterns and insert a freeze op to make
a safe reduction:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/NH54Ah
We get the minimal patterns with this patch, but the PhaseOrdering tests
show that we still need adjustments to get the ideal IR in some or all of
the motivating cases.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105730
The const version of VPValue::getVPValue still had a default value for
the value index. Remove the default value and use getVPSingleValue
instead, which is the proper function.
Instead of performing the isMoreProfitable() operation on
InstructionCost::CostTy the operation is performed on InstructionCost
directly, so that it can handle the case where one of the costs is
Invalid.
This patch also changes the CostTy to be int64_t, so that the type is
wide enough to deal with multiplications with e.g. `unsigned MaxTripCount`.
Reviewed By: dmgreen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105113
This makes it clearer when we have encountered the extra arg.
Also, we may need to adjust the way the operand iteration
works when handling logical and/or.
This is NFC-intended currently (so no test diffs). The motivation
is to eventually allow matching for poison-safe logical-and and
logical-or (these are in the form of a select-of-bools).
( https://llvm.org/PR41312 )
Those patterns will not have all of the same constraints as min/max
in the form of cmp+sel. We may also end up removing the cmp+sel
min/max matching entirely (if we canonicalize to intrinsics), so
this will make that step easier.
This patch removes the IsPairwiseForm flag from the Reduction Cost TTI
hooks, along with some accompanying code for pattern matching reductions
from trees starting at extract elements. IsPairWise is now assumed to be
false, which was the predominant way that the value was used from both
the Loop and SLP vectorizers. Since the adjustments such as D93860, the
SLP vectorizer has not relied upon this distinction between paiwise and
non-pairwise reductions.
This also removes some code that was detecting reductions trees starting
from extract elements inside the costmodel. This case was
double-counting costs though, adding the individual costs on the
individual instruction _and_ the total cost of the reduction. Removing
it changes the costs in llvm/test/Analysis/CostModel/X86/reduction.ll to
not double count. The cost of reduction intrinsics is still tested
through the various tests in
llvm/test/Analysis/CostModel/X86/reduce-xyz.ll.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105484
Patch tries to improve the vectorization of stores. Originally, we just
check the type and the base pointer of the store.
Patch adds some extra checks to avoid non-profitable vectorization
cases. It includes analysis of the scalar values to be stored and
triggers the vectorization attempt only if the scalar values have
same/alt opcode and are from same basic block, i.e. we don't end up
immediately with the gather node, which is not profitable.
This also improves compile time by filtering out non-profitable cases.
Part of D57059.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104122
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
The reduction matching was probably only dealing with binops
when it was written, but we have now generalized it to handle
select and intrinsics too, so assert on that too.
Resubmit after the following changes:
* Fix a latent bug related to unrolling with required epilogue (see e49d65f). I believe this is the cause of the prior PPC buildbot failure.
* Disable non-latch exits for epilogue vectorization to be safe (9ffa90d)
* Split out assert movement (600624a) to reduce churn if this gets reverted again.
Previous commit message (try 3)
Resubmit after fixing test/Transforms/LoopVectorize/ARM/mve-gather-scatter-tailpred.ll
Previous commit message...
This is a resubmit of 3e5ce4 (which was reverted by 7fe41ac). The original commit caused a PPC build bot failure we never really got to the bottom of. I can't reproduce the issue, and the bot owner was non-responsive. In the meantime, we stumbled across an issue which seems possibly related, and worked around a latent bug in 80e8025. My best guess is that the original patch exposed that latent issue at higher frequency, but it really is just a guess.
Original commit message follows...
If we know that the scalar epilogue is required to run, modify the CFG to end the middle block with an unconditional branch to scalar preheader. This is instead of a conditional branch to either the preheader or the exit block.
The motivation to do this is to support multiple exit blocks. Specifically, the current structure forces us to identify immediate dominators and *which* exit block to branch from in the middle terminator. For the multiple exit case - where we know require scalar will hold - these questions are ill formed.
This is the last change needed to support multiple exit loops, but since the diffs are already large enough, I'm going to land this, and then enable separately. You can think of this as being NFCIish prep work, but the changes are a bit too involved for me to feel comfortable tagging the review that way.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94892
When skimming through old review discussion, I noticed a post commit comment on an earlier patch which had gone unaddressed. Better late (4 months), than never right?
I'm not aware of an active problem with the combination of non-latch exits and epilogue vectorization, but the interaction was not considered and I'm not modivated to make epilogue vectorization work with early exits. If there were a bug in the interaction, it would be pretty hard to hit right now (as we canonicalize towards bottom tested loops), but an upcoming change to allow multiple exit loops will greatly increase the chance for error. Thus, let's play it safe for now.
Compare type IDs and DFS numbering for basic block instead of addresses
to fix non-determinism.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105031
This reverts commit 706bbfb35b.
The committed version moves the definition of VPReductionPHIRecipe out
of an ifdef only intended for ::print helpers. This should resolve the
build failures that caused the revert
This patch adds a TTI function, isElementTypeLegalForScalableVector, to query
whether it is possible to vectorize a given element type. This is called by
isLegalToVectorizeInstTypesForScalable to reject scalable vectorization if
any of the instruction types in the loop are unsupported, e.g:
int foo(__int128_t* ptr, int N)
#pragma clang loop vectorize_width(4, scalable)
for (int i=0; i<N; ++i)
ptr[i] = ptr[i] + 42;
This example currently crashes if we attempt to vectorize since i128 is not a
supported type for scalable vectorization.
Reviewed By: sdesmalen, david-arm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102253
This reverts commit 3fed6d443f,
bbcbf21ae6 and
6c3451cd76.
The changes causing build failures with certain configurations, e.g.
https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/67/builds/3365/steps/6/logs/stdio
lib/libLLVMVectorize.a(LoopVectorize.cpp.o): In function `llvm::VPRecipeBuilder::tryToCreateWidenRecipe(llvm::Instruction*, llvm::ArrayRef<llvm::VPValue*>, llvm::VFRange&, std::unique_ptr<llvm::VPlan, std::default_delete<llvm::VPlan> >&) [clone .localalias.8]':
LoopVectorize.cpp:(.text._ZN4llvm15VPRecipeBuilder22tryToCreateWidenRecipeEPNS_11InstructionENS_8ArrayRefIPNS_7VPValueEEERNS_7VFRangeERSt10unique_ptrINS_5VPlanESt14default_deleteISA_EE+0x63b): undefined reference to `vtable for llvm::VPReductionPHIRecipe'
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
This patch is a first step towards splitting up VPWidenPHIRecipe into
separate recipes for the 3 distinct cases they model:
1. reduction phis,
2. first-order recurrence phis,
3. pointer induction phis.
This allows untangling the code generation and allows us to reduce the
reliance on LoopVectorizationCostModel during VPlan code generation.
Discussed/suggested in D100102, D100113, D104197.
Reviewed By: Ayal
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104989
Splits `getSmallestAndWidestTypes` into two functions, one of which now collects
a list of all element types found in the loop (`ElementTypesInLoop`). This ensures we do not
have to iterate over all instructions in the loop again in other places, such as in D102253
which disables scalable vectorization of a loop if any of the instructions use invalid types.
Reviewed By: sdesmalen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105437
The function vectorizeChainsInBlock does not support scalable vector,
because function like canReuseExtract and isCommutative in the code
path assert with scalable vectors.
This patch avoids vectorizing blocks that have extract instructions with scalable
vector..
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104809
This API is not compatible with opaque pointers, the method
accepting an explicit pointer element type should be used instead.
Thankfully there were few in-tree users. The BPF case still ends
up using the pointer element type for now and needs something like
D105407 to avoid doing so.
Same as other CreateLoad-style APIs, these need an explicit type
argument to support opaque pointers.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105395
The compiler should not ignore UndefValue when gathering the scalars,
otherwise the resulting code may be less defined than the original one.
Also, grouped scalars to insert them at first to reduce the analysis in
further passes.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105275
In lots of places we were calling setDebugLocFromInst and passing
in the same Builder member variable found in InnerLoopVectorizer.
I personally found this confusing so I've changed the interface
to take an Optional<IRBuilder<> *> and we can now pass in None
when we want to use the class member variable.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105100
If we unroll a loop in the vectorizer (without vectorizing), and the cost model requires a epilogue be generated for correctness, the code generation must actually do so.
The included test case on an unmodified opt will access memory one past the expected bound. As a result, this patch is fixing a latent miscompile.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103700
This patch fixes a crash when the target instruction for sinking is
dead. In that case, no recipe is created and trying to get the recipe
for it results in a crash. To ensure all sink targets are alive, find &
use the first previous alive instruction.
Note that the case where the sink source is dead is already handled.
Found by
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/oss-fuzz/issues/detail?id=35320
Reviewed By: Ayal
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104603
Previously in setCostBasedWideningDecision if we encountered an
invariant store we just assumed that we could scalarize the store
and called getUniformMemOpCost to get the associated cost.
However, for scalable vectors this is not an option because it is
not currently possibly to scalarize the store. At the moment we
crash in VPReplicateRecipe::execute when trying to scalarize the
store.
Therefore, I have changed setCostBasedWideningDecision so that if
we are storing a scalable vector out to a uniform address and the
target supports scatter instructions, then we should use those
instead.
Tests have been added here:
Transforms/LoopVectorize/AArch64/sve-inv-store.ll
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104624
Currently we will allow loops with a fixed width VF of 1 to vectorize
if the -enable-strict-reductions flag is set. However, the loop vectorizer
will not use ordered reductions if `VF.isScalar()` and the resulting
vectorized loop will be out of order.
This patch removes `VF.isVector()` when checking if ordered reductions
should be used. Also, instead of converting the FAdds to reductions if the
VF = 1, operands of the FAdds are changed such that the order is preserved.
Reviewed By: david-arm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104533
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
This patch updates VPWidenPHI recipes for first-order recurrences to
also track the incoming value from the back-edge. Similar to D99294,
which did the same for reductions.
Reviewed By: Ayal
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104197
Make getPointersDiff() and sortPtrAccesses() compatible with opaque
pointers by explicitly passing in the element type instead of
determining it from the pointer element type.
The SLPVectorizer result is slightly non-optimal in that unnecessary
pointer bitcasts are added.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104784
Perform better analysis when trying to vectorize PHIs.
1. Do not try to vectorize vector PHIs.
2. Do deeper analysis for more profitable nodes for the vectorization.
Before we just tried to vectorize the PHIs of the same type. Patch
improves this and tries to vectorize PHIs with incoming values which
come from the same basic block, have the same and/or alternative
opcodes.
It allows to save the compile time and provides better vectorization
results in general.
Part of D57059.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103638
This really isn't talking about vectors in general,
but only about either fixed or scalable vectors,
and it's pretty confusing to see it state
that there aren't any vectors :)
At the moment, we create insertelement instructions directly after
LastInst when inserting scalar values in a vector in
VPTransformState::get.
This results in invalid IR when LastInst is a phi, followed by another
phi. In that case, the new instructions should be inserted just after
the last PHI node in the block.
At the moment, I don't think the problematic case can be triggered, but
it can happen once predicate regions are merged and multiple
VPredInstPHI recipes are in the same block (D100260).
Reviewed By: Ayal
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104188
This can be seen as a follow up to commit 0ee439b705,
that changed the second argument of __powidf2, __powisf2 and
__powitf2 in compiler-rt from si_int to int. That was to align with
how those runtimes are defined in libgcc.
One thing that seem to have been missing in that patch was to make
sure that the rest of LLVM also handle that the argument now depends
on the size of int (not using the si_int machine mode for 32-bit).
When using __builtin_powi for a target with 16-bit int clang crashed.
And when emitting libcalls to those rtlib functions, typically when
lowering @llvm.powi), the backend would always prepare the exponent
argument as an i32 which caused miscompiles when the rtlib was
compiled with 16-bit int.
The solution used here is to use an overloaded type for the second
argument in @llvm.powi. This way clang can use the "correct" type
when lowering __builtin_powi, and then later when emitting the libcall
it is assumed that the type used in @llvm.powi matches the rtlib
function.
One thing that needed some extra attention was that when vectorizing
calls several passes did not support that several arguments could
be overloaded in the intrinsics. This patch allows overload of a
scalar operand by adding hasVectorInstrinsicOverloadedScalarOpd, with
an entry for powi.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99439
As Eli mentioned post-commit in D103378, the result of the freeze may
still be out-of-range according to Alive2. So for now, just limit the
transform to indices that are non-poison.
It was found by chance revealing discrepancy between comment (few lines above),
the condition and how re-ordering of instruction is done inside the if statement
it guards. The condition was always evaluated to true.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104064
David Sherwood