Commit Graph

12 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Florian Hahn 23c2f2e6b2
[LV] Mark increment of main vector loop induction variable as NUW.
This patch marks the induction increment of the main induction variable
of the vector loop as NUW when not folding the tail.

If the tail is not folded, we know that End - Start >= Step (either
statically or through the minimum iteration checks). We also know that both
Start % Step == 0 and End % Step == 0. We exit the vector loop if %IV +
%Step == %End. Hence we must exit the loop before %IV + %Step unsigned
overflows and we can mark the induction increment as NUW.

This should make SCEV return more precise bounds for the created vector
loops, used by later optimizations, like late unrolling.

At the moment quite a few tests still need to be updated, but before
doing so I'd like to get initial feedback to make sure I am not missing
anything.

Note that this could probably be further improved by using information
from the original IV.

Attempt of modeling of the assumption in Alive2:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/H_DL_g

Part of a set of fixes required for PR50412.

Reviewed By: mkazantsev

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103255
2021-06-07 10:47:52 +01:00
Sanjay Patel 79b1b4a581 [Vectorizers][TTI] remove option to bypass creation of vector reduction intrinsics
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
2021-02-12 08:13:50 -05:00
Juneyoung Lee 9b29610228 Use unary CreateShuffleVector if possible
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
2020-12-30 22:36:08 +09:00
Sjoerd Meijer 9529597cf4 Recommit #2: "[LV] Induction Variable does not remain scalar under tail-folding."
This was reverted because of a miscompilation. At closer inspection, the
problem was actually visible in a changed llvm regression test too. This
one-line follow up fix/recommit will splat the IV, which is what we are trying
to avoid if unnecessary in general, if tail-folding is requested even if all
users are scalar instructions after vectorisation. Because with tail-folding,
the splat IV will be used by the predicate of the masked loads/stores
instructions. The previous version omitted this, which caused the
miscompilation. The original commit message was:

If tail-folding of the scalar remainder loop is applied, the primary induction
variable is splat to a vector and used by the masked load/store vector
instructions, thus the IV does not remain scalar. Because we now mark
that the IV does not remain scalar for these cases, we don't emit the vector IV
if it is not used. Thus, the vectoriser produces less dead code.

Thanks to Ayal Zaks for the direction how to fix this.
2020-05-13 13:50:09 +01:00
Benjamin Kramer f936457f80 Revert "Recommit "[LV] Induction Variable does not remain scalar under tail-folding.""
This reverts commit ae45b4dbe7. It
causes miscompilations, test case on the mailing list.
2020-05-08 14:49:10 +02:00
Sjoerd Meijer ae45b4dbe7 Recommit "[LV] Induction Variable does not remain scalar under tail-folding."
With 3 llvm regr tests fixed/updated that I had missed.
2020-05-07 11:52:20 +01:00
Sjoerd Meijer 20d67ffeae Revert "[LV] Induction Variable does not remain scalar under tail-folding."
This reverts commit 617aa64c84.

while I investigate buildbot failures.
2020-05-07 09:29:56 +01:00
Sjoerd Meijer 617aa64c84 [LV] Induction Variable does not remain scalar under tail-folding.
If tail-folding of the scalar remainder loop is applied, the primary induction
variable is splat to a vector and used by the masked load/store vector
instructions, thus the IV does not remain scalar. Because we now mark
that the IV does not remain scalar for these cases, we don't emit the vector IV
if it is not used. Thus, the vectoriser produces less dead code.

Thanks to Ayal Zaks for the direction how to fix this.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78911
2020-05-07 09:15:23 +01:00
Eric Christopher cee313d288 Revert "Temporarily Revert "Add basic loop fusion pass.""
The reversion apparently deleted the test/Transforms directory.

Will be re-reverting again.

llvm-svn: 358552
2019-04-17 04:52:47 +00:00
Eric Christopher a863435128 Temporarily Revert "Add basic loop fusion pass."
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).

This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.

llvm-svn: 358546
2019-04-17 02:12:23 +00:00
Daniel Neilson 9e4bbe801a [LV] Preserve inbounds on created GEPs
Summary:
This is a fix for PR23997.

The loop vectorizer is not preserving the inbounds property of GEPs that it creates.
This is inhibiting some optimizations. This patch preserves the inbounds property in
the case where a load/store is being fed by an inbounds GEP.

Reviewers: mkuper, javed.absar, hsaito

Reviewed By: hsaito

Subscribers: dcaballe, hsaito, llvm-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46191

llvm-svn: 331269
2018-05-01 15:35:08 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 8529dd5ee1 [ARM] add loop vectorizer test based on 482.sphinx3 from SPEC2006; NFC
This is a slight reduction of one of the benchmarks
that suffered with D43079. Cost model changes should
not cause this test to remain scalarized.

llvm-svn: 326221
2018-02-27 18:33:24 +00:00