As discussed on D107228, widening a subvector by inserting the whole subvector into the bottom a larger undef vector should always be cheap enough that we can treat it as zero cost.
NOTE: If this proves to cause issues we have the option of introducing a "SK_WidenSubvector" shuffle kind enum that targets could override the zero cost, but that doesn't seem necessary atm.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107228
We previously made a change to getUserCost to return a Invalid cost
when one of the TTI costs returned '-1' (meaning 'unknown' or
'infinitely expensive'). It makes no sense to say that:
shufflevector <2 x i8> %x, <2 x i8> %y, <4 x i32> <i32 0, i32 1, i32 2, i32 3>
has an invalid cost. Perhaps the cost is not known, but the IR is valid
and can be code-generated. Invalid should only be used for IR that
cannot possibly be code-generated and where a cost is nonsensical.
With more passes now asserting that the cost must be valid, it is possible
that those assertions will fail for perfectly valid IR. An incomplete
cost-model probably shouldn't be a reason for the compiler to break.
It's better to consider these costs as 'very expensive' and ignore them
for other reasons. At some point, we should consider replacing -1 with
some other mechanism.
Reviewed By: paulwalker-arm, dmgreen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99502
Simon Pilgrim