This is similar to the existing fold for splats added with:
rL365379
If we can adjust the shuffle mask to include another element
in an identity mask (if it changes vector length, that's an
extract/insert subvector operation in the backend), then that
can eliminate extractelement/insertelement pairs in IR.
All targets are expected to lower shuffles with identity masks
efficiently.
llvm-svn: 371340
Forming the canonical splat shuffle improves analysis and
may allow follow-on transforms (although some possibilities
are missing as shown in the test diffs).
The backend generically turns these patterns into build_vector,
so there should be no codegen regressions. All targets are
expected to be able to lower splats efficiently.
llvm-svn: 365379
We recognize a splat from element 0 in (VectorUtils) llvm::getSplatValue()
and also in ShuffleVectorInst::isZeroEltSplatMask(), so this converts
to that form for better matching.
The backend generically turns these patterns into build_vector,
so there should be no codegen difference.
llvm-svn: 365342
We allow forming a splat (broadcast) shuffle, but we were conservatively limiting
that to cases where all elements of the vector are specified. It should be safe
from a codegen perspective to allow undefined lanes of the vector because the
expansion of a splat shuffle would become the chain of inserts again.
Forming splat shuffles can reduce IR and help enable further IR transforms.
Motivating bugs:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42174https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16739
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63848
llvm-svn: 365147
This was part of InstCombine, but it's better placed in
InstSimplify. InstCombine also had an unreachable but weaker
fold for insertelement with undef index, so that is deleted.
llvm-svn: 361559
This is reduced from a fuzzer test:
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/oss-fuzz/issues/detail?id=14890
Usually, demanded elements should be able to simplify shuffle
mask elements that are pointing to undef elements of its source
operands, but that doesn't happen in the test case.
llvm-svn: 361533
This should be a valid exception to the general rule of not creating new shuffle masks in IR...
because we already do it. :)
Also, DAG combining/legalization will undo this by widening the shuffle back out if needed.
Explanation for how we already do this: SLP or vector source can create chains of insert/extract
as shown in 1 of the examples from PR16739:
https://godbolt.org/z/NlK7rAhttps://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16739
And we expect instcombine or DAGCombine to clean that up by creating relatively simple shuffles.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62024
llvm-svn: 361338
Summary:
This fixes PR41270.
The recursive function evaluateInDifferentElementOrder expects to be called
on a vector Value, so when we call it on a vector GEP's arguments, we must
first check that the argument is indeed a vector.
Reviewers: reames, spatel
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60058
llvm-svn: 357389
This reverts commit 75216a6dbcfe5fb55039ef06a07e419fa875f4a5.
I'll recommit with a better commit message with reference to the
phabricator review.
llvm-svn: 357387
This fixes PR41270.
The recursive function evaluateInDifferentElementOrder expects to be called
on a vector Value, so when we call it on a vector GEP's arguments, we must
first check that the argument is indeed a vector.
llvm-svn: 357385
In PR41304:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41304
...we have a case where we want to fold a binop of select-shuffle (blended) values.
Rather than try to match commuted variants of the pattern, we can canonicalize the
shuffles and check for mask equality with commuted operands.
We don't produce arbitrary shuffle masks in instcombine, but select-shuffles are a
special case that the backend is required to handle because we already canonicalize
vector select to this shuffle form.
So there should be no codegen difference from this change. It's possible that this
improves CSE in IR though.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60016
llvm-svn: 357366
This may not be NFC, but I'm not sure how to expose any diffs in
tests. In theory, it should be slightly more efficient and possibly
more profitable to do the canonicalizations (which can increase the
undef elements in the mask) ahead of SimplifyDemandedVectorElts().
llvm-svn: 357272
As discussed in D53037, this can lead to worse codegen, and we
don't generally expect the backend to be able to optimize
arbitrary shuffles. If there's only one use of the 1st shuffle,
that means it's getting removed, so that should always be
safe.
llvm-svn: 353235
to reflect the new license.
We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.
Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.
llvm-svn: 351636
As the FIXME indicates, this has the potential to go
overboard. So I'm not sure if it's even worth keeping
this vs. iteratively doing simple matches, but we might
as well clean it up.
llvm-svn: 349523
Extracting from a splat constant is always handled by InstSimplify.
Move the test for this from InstCombine to InstSimplify to make
sure that stays true.
llvm-svn: 348423
shuffle (insert ?, Scalar, IndexC), V1, Mask --> insert V1, Scalar, IndexC'
The motivating case is at least a couple of steps away: I noticed that
SLPVectorizer does not analyze shuffles as well as sequences of
insert/extract in PR34724:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34724
...so SLP may fail to vectorize when source code has shuffles to start
with or instcombine has converted insert/extract to shuffles.
Independent of that, an insertelement is always a simpler op for IR
analysis vs. a shuffle, so we should transform to insert when possible.
I don't think there's any codegen concern here - if a target can't insert
a scalar directly to some fixed element in a vector (x86?), then this
should get expanded to the insert+shuffle that we started with.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53507
llvm-svn: 345607
I couldn't tell from svn history when these checks were added,
but it pre-dates the split of instcombine into its own directory
at rL92459.
The motivation for changing the check is partly shown by the
code in PR34724:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34724
There are also existing regression tests for SLPVectorizer with
sequences of extract+insert that are likely assumed to become
shuffles by the vectorizer cost models.
llvm-svn: 344854
This is part of the missing IR-level folding noted in D52912.
This should be ok as a canonicalization because the new shuffle mask can't
be any more complicated than the existing shuffle mask. If there's some
target where the shorter vector shuffle is not legal, it should just end up
expanding to something like the pair of shuffles that we're starting with here.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53037
llvm-svn: 344476
This is a follow-up to rL343482 / D52439.
This was a pattern that initially caused the commit to be reverted because
the transform requires a bitcast as shown here.
llvm-svn: 343794
This was originally committed at rL343407, but reverted at
rL343458 because it crashed trying to handle a case where
the destination type is FP. This version of the patch adds
a check for that possibility. Tests added at rL343480.
Original commit message:
This transform is requested for the backend in:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39016
...but I figured it was worth doing in IR too, and it's probably
easier to implement here, so that's this patch.
In the simplest case, we are just truncating a scalar value. If the
extract index doesn't correspond to the LSBs of the scalar, then we
have to shift-right before the truncate. Endian-ness makes this tricky,
but hopefully the ASCII-art helps visualize the transform.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52439
llvm-svn: 343482
This caused Chromium builds to fail with "Illegal Trunc" assertion.
See https://crbug.com/890723 for repro.
> This transform is requested for the backend in:
> https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39016
> ...but I figured it was worth doing in IR too, and it's probably
> easier to implement here, so that's this patch.
>
> In the simplest case, we are just truncating a scalar value. If the
> extract index doesn't correspond to the LSBs of the scalar, then we
> have to shift-right before the truncate. Endian-ness makes this tricky,
> but hopefully the ASCII-art helps visualize the transform.
>
> Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52439
llvm-svn: 343458
This transform is requested for the backend in:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39016
...but I figured it was worth doing in IR too, and it's probably
easier to implement here, so that's this patch.
In the simplest case, we are just truncating a scalar value. If the
extract index doesn't correspond to the LSBs of the scalar, then we
have to shift-right before the truncate. Endian-ness makes this tricky,
but hopefully the ASCII-art helps visualize the transform.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52439
llvm-svn: 343407
As noted in post-commit comments for D52548, the limitation on
increasing vector length can be applied by opcode.
As a first step, this patch only allows insertelement to be
widened because that has no logical downsides for IR and has
little risk of pessimizing codegen.
This may cause PR39132 to go into hiding during a full compile,
but that bug is not fixed.
llvm-svn: 343406
InstCombine would propagate shufflevector insts that had wider output vectors onto
predecessors, which would sometimes push undef's onto the divisor of a div/rem and
result in bad codegen.
I've fixed this by just banning propagating shufflevector back if the result of
the shufflevector is wider than the input vectors.
Patch by: @sheredom (Neil Henning)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52548
llvm-svn: 343329
We can handle patterns where the elements have different
sizes, so refactoring ahead of trying to add another blob
within these clauses.
llvm-svn: 342918
'width' of a vector usually refers to the bit-width.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39016
shows a case where we could extend this fold to handle
a case where the number of elements in the bitcasted
vector is not equal to the resulting value.
llvm-svn: 342902
shuf (sel (shuf NarrowCond, undef, WideMask), X, Y), undef, NarrowMask) -->
sel NarrowCond, (shuf X, undef, NarrowMask), (shuf Y, undef, NarrowMask)
The motivating case from:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38691
...is the last regression test. In that case, we're just left with the narrow select.
Note that if we do create new shuffles, they use the existing extraction identity mask,
so there's no danger that this transform creates arbitrary shuffles.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51496
llvm-svn: 341708
This was originally intended with D48893, but as discussed there, we
have to make the folds safe from producing extra poison. This should
give the single binop folds the same capabilities as the existing
folds for 2-binops+shuffle.
LLVM binary opcode review: there are a total of 18 binops. There are 7
commutative binops (add, mul, and, or, xor, fadd, fmul) which we already
fold. We're able to fold 6 more opcodes with this patch (shl, lshr, ashr,
fdiv, udiv, sdiv). There are no folds for srem/urem/frem AFAIK. We don't
bother with sub/fsub with constant operand 1 because those are
canonicalized to add/fadd. 7 + 6 + 3 + 2 = 18.
llvm-svn: 336684
The case with 2 variables is more complicated than the case where
we eliminate the shuffle entirely because a shuffle with an undef
mask element creates an undef result.
I'm not aware of any current analysis/transform that recognizes that
undef propagating to a div/rem/shift, but we have to guard against
the possibility.
llvm-svn: 336668
Sanjay Patel