Extracting to the same index that we are going to insert back into
allows forming select ("blend") shuffles and enables further transforms.
Admittedly, this is a quick-fix for a more general problem that I'm
hoping to solve by adding transforms for patterns that start with an
insertelement.
But this might resolve some regressions known to be caused by the
extract-extract transform (although I have not gotten more details on
those yet).
In the motivating case from PR34724:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34724
The combination of subsequent instcombine and codegen transforms gets us this improvement:
vmovshdup %xmm0, %xmm2 ## xmm2 = xmm0[1,1,3,3]
vhaddps %xmm1, %xmm1, %xmm4
vmovshdup %xmm1, %xmm3 ## xmm3 = xmm1[1,1,3,3]
vaddps %xmm0, %xmm2, %xmm0
vaddps %xmm1, %xmm3, %xmm1
vshufps $200, %xmm4, %xmm0, %xmm0 ## xmm0 = xmm0[0,2],xmm4[0,3]
vinsertps $177, %xmm1, %xmm0, %xmm0 ## xmm0 = zero,xmm0[1,2],xmm1[2]
-->
vmovshdup %xmm0, %xmm2 ## xmm2 = xmm0[1,1,3,3]
vhaddps %xmm1, %xmm1, %xmm1
vaddps %xmm0, %xmm2, %xmm0
vshufps $200, %xmm1, %xmm0, %xmm0 ## xmm0 = xmm0[0,2],xmm1[0,3]
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D76623
opcode (extelt V0, Ext0), (ext V1, Ext1) --> extelt (opcode (splat V0, Ext0), V1), Ext1
The first part of this patch generalizes the cost calculation to accept
different extraction indexes. The second part creates a shuffle+extract
before feeding into the existing code to create a vector op+extract.
The patch conservatively uses "TargetTransformInfo::SK_PermuteSingleSrc"
rather than "TargetTransformInfo::SK_Broadcast" (splat specifically
from element 0) because we do not have a more general "SK_Splat"
currently. That does not affect any of the current regression tests,
but we might be able to find some cost model target specialization where
that comes into play.
I suspect that we can expose some missing x86 horizontal op codegen with
this transform, so I'm speculatively adding a debug flag to disable the
binop variant of this transform to allow easier testing.
The test changes show that we're sensitive to cost model diffs (as we
should be), so that means that patches like D74976
should have better coverage.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D75689
getOperationCost() is not the cost we wanted; that's not the
throughput value that the rest of the calculation uses.
We may want to switch everything in this code to use the
getInstructionThroughput() wrapper to avoid these kinds of
problems, but I'll look at that as a follow-up because that
can create other logical diffs via using optional parameters
(we'd need to speculatively create the vector instruction to
make a fair(er) comparison).
We have several bug reports that could be characterized as "reducing scalarization",
and this topic was also raised on llvm-dev recently:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-January/138157.html
...so I'm proposing that we deal with these patterns in a new, lightweight IR vector
pass that runs before/after other vectorization passes.
There are 4 alternate options that I can think of to deal with this kind of problem
(and we've seen various attempts at all of these), but they all have flaws:
InstCombine - can't happen without TTI, but we don't want target-specific
folds there.
SDAG - too late to assist other vectorization passes; TLI is not equipped
for these kind of cost queries; limited to a single basic block.
CGP - too late to assist other vectorization passes; would need to re-implement
basic cleanups like CSE/instcombine.
SLP - doesn't fit with existing transforms; limited to a single basic block.
This initial patch/transform is based on existing code in AggressiveInstCombine:
we walk backwards through the function looking for a pattern match. But we diverge
from that cost-independent IR canonicalization pass by using TTI to decide if the
vector alternative is profitable.
We probably have at least 10 similar bug reports/patterns (binops, constants,
inserts, cheap shuffles, etc) that would fit in this pass as follow-up enhancements.
It's possible that we could iterate on a worklist to fix-point like InstCombine does,
but it's safer to start with a most basic case and evolve from there, so I didn't
try to do anything fancy with this initial implementation.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73480
Sanjay Patel