Apparently my methodology was suboptimal, and not only did miss all the +VL tuples,
i also missed some plain tuples. I believe, this adds everything missing.
Indeed, these manual costmodels are just not okay long-term.
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114334
Much like the VPMOVM2[BW] / VPMOV[BW]2M from AVX512BW,
these either sign-extent the mask register into a vector,
or pack the mask from vector register.
Apparently, we didn't even have MCA tests for these,
added in rG2f364f6f0d3a2420ca78cbd80abb186657180e05,
so i'm just guessing that their perf characteristics
are optimal.
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114314
Update costs based on the worst case costs from the script in D103695.
Move to using legalized types wherever possible, which allows us to prune the cost tables.
Determined from llvm-mca analysis (btver2 vs bdver2 vs sandybridge), the split+extends+concat sequence on AVX1 capable targets are cheaper than the #ops that the cost was previously based on.
If both the source and the destination need to be split then the two halves of the split operation are completely independent and don't need to be split or joined. So we don't need to assess a cost for the split or join.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79111
This tries to improve the accuracy of extract/insert element costs by accounting for subvector extraction/insertion for >128-bit vectors and the shuffling of elements to/from the 0'th index.
It also adds INSERTPS for f32 types and PINSR/PEXTR costs for integer types (at the moment we assume the same cost as MOVD/MOVQ - which isn't always true).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D74976
We seem to be inheriting the cost from sse4.1. But if we have 256-bit registers we should be able to do this with just one extract to split the 16i16 and two v8i16->v8i32 operations so our cost should be 3 not 4.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73646
Now that we legalize by widening, the element types here won't change. Previously these were modeled as the elements being widened and then the instruction might become an AND or SHL/ASHR pair. But now they'll become something like a ZERO_EXTEND_VECTOR_INREG/SIGN_EXTEND_VECTOR_INREG.
For AVX2, when the destination type is legal its clear the cost should be 1 since we have extend instructions that can produce 256 bit vectors from less than 128 bit vectors. I'm a little less sure about AVX1 costs, but I think the ones I changed were definitely too high, but they might still be too high.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66169
llvm-svn: 368858
This fixes some of scalarization costs reported for sext/zext using avx512bw. This does not fix all scalarization costs being reported. Just the worst.
I've restricted this only to combinations of types that are legal with avx512bw like v32i1/v64i1/v32i16/v64i8 and conversions between vXi1 and vXi8/vXi16 with legal vXi8/vXi16 result types.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54979
llvm-svn: 347785
Our sext/zext cost modeling was somewhat incomplete. And had no coverage for the fact that avx512bw v32i16/v64i8 types return a scalarization cost.
Truncates are a whole different mess because isTruncateFree is returning true for vectors when it shouldn't and that's the fall back for anything not in the tables.
llvm-svn: 347719
Simon Pilgrim