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
This version contains 2 fixes for reported issues:
1. Make sure we do not try to sink terminator instructions.
2. Make sure we bail out, if we try to sink an instruction that needs to
stay in place for another recurrence.
Original message:
If the recurrence PHI node has a single user, we can sink any
instruction without side effects, given that all users are dominated by
the instruction computing the incoming value of the next iteration
('Previous'). We can sink instructions that may cause traps, because
that only causes the trap to occur later, but not on any new paths.
With the relaxed check, we also have to make sure that we do not have a
direct cycle (meaning PHI user == 'Previous), which indicates a
reduction relation, which potentially gets missed by
ReductionDescriptor.
As follow-ups, we can also sink stores, iff they do not alias with
other instructions we move them across and we could also support sinking
chains of instructions and multiple users of the PHI.
Fixes PR43398.
Reviewers: hsaito, dcaballe, Ayal, rengolin
Reviewed By: Ayal
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69228
It broke Chromium, causing "Instruction does not dominate all uses!" errors.
See https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1022297#c1 for a
reproducer.
> If the recurrence PHI node has a single user, we can sink any
> instruction without side effects, given that all users are dominated by
> the instruction computing the incoming value of the next iteration
> ('Previous'). We can sink instructions that may cause traps, because
> that only causes the trap to occur later, but not on any new paths.
>
> With the relaxed check, we also have to make sure that we do not have a
> direct cycle (meaning PHI user == 'Previous), which indicates a
> reduction relation, which potentially gets missed by
> ReductionDescriptor.
>
> As follow-ups, we can also sink stores, iff they do not alias with
> other instructions we move them across and we could also support sinking
> chains of instructions and multiple users of the PHI.
>
> Fixes PR43398.
>
> Reviewers: hsaito, dcaballe, Ayal, rengolin
>
> Reviewed By: Ayal
>
> Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69228
If the recurrence PHI node has a single user, we can sink any
instruction without side effects, given that all users are dominated by
the instruction computing the incoming value of the next iteration
('Previous'). We can sink instructions that may cause traps, because
that only causes the trap to occur later, but not on any new paths.
With the relaxed check, we also have to make sure that we do not have a
direct cycle (meaning PHI user == 'Previous), which indicates a
reduction relation, which potentially gets missed by
ReductionDescriptor.
As follow-ups, we can also sink stores, iff they do not alias with
other instructions we move them across and we could also support sinking
chains of instructions and multiple users of the PHI.
Fixes PR43398.
Reviewers: hsaito, dcaballe, Ayal, rengolin
Reviewed By: Ayal
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69228
Sjoerd Meijer