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
Use -0.0 instead of 0.0 as the start value. The previous use of 0.0
was fine for all existing uses of this function though, as it is
always generated with fast flags right now, and thus nsz.
Motivating examples are seen in the PhaseOrdering tests based on:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43953#c2 - if we have
intrinsics there, some pass can fold them.
The intrinsics are still named "experimental" at this point, but
if there is no fallout from this patch, that will be a good
indicator that it is safe to finalize them.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80867
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.
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
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
Prior to SSE41 (and sometimes on AVX1), vector select has to be performed as a ((X & C)|(Y & ~C)) bit select.
Exposes a couple of issues with the min/max reduction costs (which only go down to SSE42 for some reason).
The increase pre-SSE41 selection costs also prevent a couple of tests from firing any longer, so I've either tweaked the target or added AVX tests as well to the existing SSE2 tests.
llvm-svn: 351685
There are too many perf regressions resulting from this, so we need to
investigate (and add tests for) targets like ARM and AArch64 before
trying to reinstate.
llvm-svn: 325658
This change was mentioned at least as far back as:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26837#c26
...and I found a real program that is harmed by this:
Himeno running on AMD Jaguar gets 6% slower with SLP vectorization:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36280
...but the change here appears to solve that bug only accidentally.
The div/rem costs for x86 look very wrong in some cases, but that's already true,
so we can fix those in follow-up patches. There's also evidence that more cost model
changes are needed to solve SLP problems as shown in D42981, but that's an independent
problem (though the solution may be adjusted after this change is made).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43079
llvm-svn: 325515
Florian Hahn