This saves creating/destroying a builder every time we
perform some transform.
The tests show instruction ordering diffs resulting from
always inserting at the root instruction now, but those
should be benign.
This is split off from D79799 - where I was proposing to fully iterate
over a function until there are no more transforms. I suspect we are
still going to want to do something like that eventually.
But we can achieve the same gains much more efficiently on the current
set of regression tests just by reversing the order that we visit the
instructions.
This may also reduce the motivation for D79078, but we are still not
getting the optimal pattern for a reduction.
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
Code duplication (subsequently removed by refactoring) allowed
a logic discrepancy to creep in here.
We were being conservative about creating a vector binop -- but
not a vector cmp -- in the case where a vector op has the same
estimated cost as the scalar op. We want to be more aggressive
here because that can allow other combines based on reduced
instruction count/uses.
We can reverse the transform in DAGCombiner (potentially with a
more accurate cost model) if this causes regressions.
AFAIK, this does not conflict with InstCombine. We have a
scalarize transform there, but it relies on finding a constant
operand or a matching insertelement, so that means it eliminates
an extractelement from the sequence (so we won't have 2 extracts
by the time we get here if InstCombine succeeds).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D75062
binop (extelt X, C), (extelt Y, C) --> extelt (binop X, Y), C
This is a transform that has been considered for canonicalization (instcombine)
in the past because it reduces instruction count. But as shown in the x86 tests,
it's impossible to know if it's profitable without a cost model. There are many
potential target constraints to consider.
We have implemented similar transforms in the backend (DAGCombiner and
target-specific), but I don't think we have this exact fold there either (and if
we did it in SDAG, it wouldn't work across blocks).
Note: this patch was intended to handle the more general case where the extract
indexes do not match, but it got too big, so I scaled it back to this pattern
for now.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D74495
We want the extra-use tests to be consistent with the
earlier single-use tests and be as cheap as possible
in vector form to show cost model edge cases. So use
i8 and extract from element 0 since that should be
cheap for all x86 targets.
Sanjay Patel