As this has broken the lto bootstrap build for 3 days and is
showing a significant regression on the Dither_benchmark results (from
the LLVM benchmark suite) -- specifically, on the
BENCHMARK_FLOYD_DITHER_128, BENCHMARK_FLOYD_DITHER_256, and
BENCHMARK_FLOYD_DITHER_512; the others are unchanged. These have
regressed by about 28% on Skylake, 34% on Haswell, and over 40% on
Sandybridge.
This reverts commit r353923.
llvm-svn: 354434
Try to use 64-bit SLP vectorization. In addition to horizontal instrs
this change triggers optimizations for partial vector operations (for instance,
using low halfs of 128-bit registers xmm0 and xmm1 to multiply <2 x float> by
<2 x float>).
Fixes llvm.org/PR32433
llvm-svn: 353923
Add generic costs calculation for SADDSAT/SSUBSAT intrinsics, this uses generic costs for sadd_with_overflow/ssub_with_overflow, an extra sign comparison + a selects based on the sign/overflow.
This completes PR40316
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57239
llvm-svn: 352315
Add generic costs calculation for UADDSAT/USUBSAT intrinsics, this fallbacks to using generic costs for uadd_with_overflow/usub_with_overflow + a select.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56907
llvm-svn: 352044
Prior to SSE41 (and sometimes on AVX1), vector select has to be performed as a ((X & C)|(Y & ~C)) bit select.
Exposes a couple of issues with the min/max reduction costs (which only go down to SSE42 for some reason).
The increase pre-SSE41 selection costs also prevent a couple of tests from firing any longer, so I've either tweaked the target or added AVX tests as well to the existing SSE2 tests.
llvm-svn: 351685
Summary:
Sometimes the SLP vectorizer tries to vectorize the horizontal reduction
nodes during regular vectorization. This may happen inside of the loops,
when there are some vectorizable PHIs. Patch fixes this by checking if
the node is the reduction node and thus it must not be vectorized, it must
be gathered.
Reviewers: RKSimon, spatel, hfinkel, fedor.sergeev
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56783
llvm-svn: 351349
Summary: The comment says we need 3 extracts and a select at the end. But didn't we just account for the select in the vector cost above. Aren't we just extracting the single element after taking the min/max in the vector register?
Reviewers: RKSimon, spatel, ABataev
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Subscribers: javed.absar, kristof.beyls, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55480
llvm-svn: 348739
We were overcounting the number of arithmetic operations needed at each level before we reach a legal type. We were using the full vector type for that level, but we are going to split the input vector at that level in half. So the effective arithmetic operation cost at that level is half the width.
So for example on 8i32 on an sse target. Were were calculating the cost of an 8i32 op which is likely 2 for basic integer. Then after the loop we count 2 more v4i32 ops. For a total arith cost of 4. But if you look at the assembly there would only be 3 arithmetic ops.
There are still more bugs in this code that I'm going to work on next. The non pairwise code shouldn't count extract subvectors in the loop. There are no extracts, the types are split in registers. For pairwise we need to use 2 two src permute shuffles.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55397
llvm-svn: 348621
We were adding the entire scalarization extraction cost for reductions, which returns the total cost of extracting every element of a vector type.
For reductions we don't need to do this - we just need to extract the 0'th element after the reduction pattern has completed.
Fixes PR37731
Rebased and reapplied after being reverted in rL347541 due to PR39774 - which was fixed by D54955/rL347759 and D55017/rL347997
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54585
llvm-svn: 348076
Summary:
An additional fix for PR39774. Need to update the references for the
RedcutionRoot instruction when it is replaced during the vectorization
phase to avoid compiler crash on reduction vectorization.
Reviewers: RKSimon, spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55017
llvm-svn: 347997
Summary:
If the original reduction root instruction was vectorized, it might be
removed from the tree. It means that the insertion point may become
invalidated and the whole vectorization of the reduction leads to the
incorrect output result.
The ReductionRoot instruction must be marked as externally used so it
could not be removed. Otherwise it might cause inconsistency with the
cost model and we may end up with too optimistic optimization.
Reviewers: RKSimon, spatel, hfinkel, mkuper
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54955
llvm-svn: 347759
This reverts commit r346970.
It was causing PR39774, a crash in slp-vectorizer on a rather simple loop
with just a bunch of 'and's in the body.
llvm-svn: 347541
We were adding the entire scalarization extraction cost for reductions, which returns the total cost of extracting every element of a vector type.
For reductions we don't need to do this - we just need to extract the 0'th element after the reduction pattern has completed.
Fixes PR37731
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54585
llvm-svn: 346970
Expand arithmetic reduction to include mul/and/or/xor instructions.
This patch just fixes the SLPVectorizer - the effective reduction costs for AVX1+ are still poor (see rL344846) and will need to be improved before SLP sees this as a valid transform - but we can already see the effect on SSE2 tests.
This partially helps PR37731, but doesn't fix it all as it still falls over on the extraction/reduction order for some reason.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53473
llvm-svn: 345037
We miss arithmetic reduction for everything but Add/FAdd (I assume because that's the only cases which x86 has horizontal ops for.....)
llvm-svn: 344849
In the case of soft-fp (e.g. fp128 under wasm) the result of
getTypeLegalizationCost() can be an integer type even if the input is
floating point (See LegalizeTypeAction::TypeSoftenFloat).
Before calling isFabsFree() (which asserts if given a non-fp
type) we need to check that that result is fp. This is safe since in
fabs is certainly not free in the soft-fp case.
Fixes PR39168
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52899
llvm-svn: 344069
as well as sext(C + x + ...) -> (D + sext(C-D + x + ...))<nuw><nsw>
similar to the equivalent transformation for zext's
if the top level addition in (D + (C-D + x * n)) could be proven to
not wrap, where the choice of D also maximizes the number of trailing
zeroes of (C-D + x * n), ensuring homogeneous behaviour of the
transformation and better canonicalization of such AddRec's
(indeed, there are 2^(2w) different expressions in `B1 + ext(B2 + Y)` form for
the same Y, but only 2^(2w - k) different expressions in the resulting `B3 +
ext((B4 * 2^k) + Y)` form, where w is the bit width of the integral type)
This patch generalizes sext(C1 + C2*X) --> sext(C1) + sext(C2*X) and
sext{C1,+,C2} --> sext(C1) + sext{0,+,C2} transformations added in
r209568 relaxing the requirements the following way:
1. C2 doesn't have to be a power of 2, it's enough if it's divisible by 2
a sufficient number of times;
2. C1 doesn't have to be less than C2, instead of extracting the entire
C1 we can split it into 2 terms: (00...0XXX + YY...Y000), keep the
second one that may cause wrapping within the extension operator, and
move the first one that doesn't affect wrapping out of the extension
operator, enabling further simplifications;
3. C1 and C2 don't have to be positive, splitting C1 like shown above
produces a sum that is guaranteed to not wrap, signed or unsigned;
4. in AddExpr case there could be more than 2 terms, and in case of
AddExpr the 2nd and following terms and in case of AddRecExpr the
Step component don't have to be in the C2*X form or constant
(respectively), they just need to have enough trailing zeros,
which in turn could be guaranteed by means other than arithmetics,
e.g. by a pointer alignment;
5. the extension operator doesn't have to be a sext, the same
transformation works and profitable for zext's as well.
Apparently, optimizations like SLPVectorizer currently fail to
vectorize even rather trivial cases like the following:
double bar(double *a, unsigned n) {
double x = 0.0;
double y = 0.0;
for (unsigned i = 0; i < n; i += 2) {
x += a[i];
y += a[i + 1];
}
return x * y;
}
If compiled with `clang -std=c11 -Wpedantic -Wall -O3 main.c -S -o - -emit-llvm`
(!{!"clang version 7.0.0 (trunk 337339) (llvm/trunk 337344)"})
it produces scalar code with the loop not unrolled with the unsigned `n` and
`i` (like shown above), but vectorized and unrolled loop with signed `n` and
`i`. With the changes made in this commit the unsigned version will be
vectorized (though not unrolled for unclear reasons).
How it all works:
Let say we have an AddExpr that looks like (C + x + y + ...), where C
is a constant and x, y, ... are arbitrary SCEVs. Let's compute the
minimum number of trailing zeroes guaranteed of that sum w/o the
constant term: (x + y + ...). If, for example, those terms look like
follows:
i
XXXX...X000
YYYY...YY00
...
ZZZZ...0000
then the rightmost non-guaranteed-zero bit (a potential one at i-th
position above) can change the bits of the sum to the left (and at
i-th position itself), but it can not possibly change the bits to the
right. So we can compute the number of trailing zeroes by taking a
minimum between the numbers of trailing zeroes of the terms.
Now let's say that our original sum with the constant is effectively
just C + X, where X = x + y + .... Let's also say that we've got 2
guaranteed trailing zeros for X:
j
CCCC...CCCC
XXXX...XX00 // this is X = (x + y + ...)
Any bit of C to the left of j may in the end cause the C + X sum to
wrap, but the rightmost 2 bits of C (at positions j and j - 1) do not
affect wrapping in any way. If the upper bits cause a wrap, it will be
a wrap regardless of the values of the 2 least significant bits of C.
If the upper bits do not cause a wrap, it won't be a wrap regardless
of the values of the 2 bits on the right (again).
So let's split C to 2 constants like follows:
0000...00CC = D
CCCC...CC00 = (C - D)
and represent the whole sum as D + (C - D + X). The second term of
this new sum looks like this:
CCCC...CC00
XXXX...XX00
----------- // let's add them up
YYYY...YY00
The sum above (let's call it Y)) may or may not wrap, we don't know,
so we need to keep it under a sext/zext. Adding D to that sum though
will never wrap, signed or unsigned, if performed on the original bit
width or the extended one, because all that that final add does is
setting the 2 least significant bits of Y to the bits of D:
YYYY...YY00 = Y
0000...00CC = D
----------- <nuw><nsw>
YYYY...YYCC
Which means we can safely move that D out of the sext or zext and
claim that the top-level sum neither sign wraps nor unsigned wraps.
Let's run an example, let's say we're working in i8's and the original
expression (zext's or sext's operand) is 21 + 12x + 8y. So it goes
like this:
0001 0101 // 21
XXXX XX00 // 12x
YYYY Y000 // 8y
0001 0101 // 21
ZZZZ ZZ00 // 12x + 8y
0000 0001 // D
0001 0100 // 21 - D = 20
ZZZZ ZZ00 // 12x + 8y
0000 0001 // D
WWWW WW00 // 21 - D + 12x + 8y = 20 + 12x + 8y
therefore zext(21 + 12x + 8y) = (1 + zext(20 + 12x + 8y))<nuw><nsw>
This approach could be improved if we move away from using trailing
zeroes and use KnownBits instead. For instance, with KnownBits we could
have the following picture:
i
10 1110...0011 // this is C
XX X1XX...XX00 // this is X = (x + y + ...)
Notice that some of the bits of X are known ones, also notice that
known bits of X are interspersed with unknown bits and not grouped on
the rigth or left.
We can see at the position i that C(i) and X(i) are both known ones,
therefore the (i + 1)th carry bit is guaranteed to be 1 regardless of
the bits of C to the right of i. For instance, the C(i - 1) bit only
affects the bits of the sum at positions i - 1 and i, and does not
influence if the sum is going to wrap or not. Therefore we could split
the constant C the following way:
i
00 0010...0011 = D
10 1100...0000 = (C - D)
Let's compute the KnownBits of (C - D) + X:
XX1 1 = carry bit, blanks stand for known zeroes
10 1100...0000 = (C - D)
XX X1XX...XX00 = X
--- -----------
XX X0XX...XX00
Will this add wrap or not essentially depends on bits of X. Adding D
to this sum, however, is guaranteed to not to wrap:
0 X
00 0010...0011 = D
sX X0XX...XX00 = (C - D) + X
--- -----------
sX XXXX XX11
As could be seen above, adding D preserves the sign bit of (C - D) +
X, if any, and has a guaranteed 0 carry out, as expected.
The more bits of (C - D) we constrain, the better the transformations
introduced here canonicalize expressions as it leaves less freedom to
what values the constant part of ((C - D) + x + y + ...) can take.
Reviewed By: mzolotukhin, efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48853
llvm-svn: 337943
TTI::getMinMaxReductionCost typically can't handle pointer types - until this is changed its better to limit horizontal reduction to integer/float vector types only.
llvm-svn: 337280
We currently only support binary instructions in the alternate opcode shuffles.
This patch is an initial attempt at adding cast instructions as well, this raises several issues that we probably want to address as we continue to generalize the alternate mechanism:
1 - Duplication of cost determination - we should probably add scalar/vector costs helper functions and get BoUpSLP::getEntryCost to use them instead of determining costs directly.
2 - Support alternate instructions with the same opcode (e.g. casts with different src types) - alternate vectorization of calls with different IntrinsicIDs will require this.
3 - Allow alternates to be a different instruction type - mixing binary/cast/call etc.
4 - Allow passthrough of unsupported alternate instructions - related to PR30787/D28907 'copyable' elements.
Reapplied with fix to only accept 2 different casts if they come from the same source type (PR38154).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49135
llvm-svn: 336989
We currently only support binary instructions in the alternate opcode shuffles.
This patch is an initial attempt at adding cast instructions as well, this raises several issues that we probably want to address as we continue to generalize the alternate mechanism:
1 - Duplication of cost determination - we should probably add scalar/vector costs helper functions and get BoUpSLP::getEntryCost to use them instead of determining costs directly.
2 - Support alternate instructions with the same opcode (e.g. casts with different src types) - alternate vectorization of calls with different IntrinsicIDs will require this.
3 - Allow alternates to be a different instruction type - mixing binary/cast/call etc.
4 - Allow passthrough of unsupported alternate instructions - related to PR30787/D28907 'copyable' elements.
Reapplied with fix to only accept 2 different casts if they come from the same source type.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49135
llvm-svn: 336812
We currently only support binary instructions in the alternate opcode shuffles.
This patch is an initial attempt at adding cast instructions as well, this raises several issues that we probably want to address as we continue to generalize the alternate mechanism:
1 - Duplication of cost determination - we should probably add scalar/vector costs helper functions and get BoUpSLP::getEntryCost to use them instead of determining costs directly.
2 - Support alternate instructions with the same opcode (e.g. casts with different src types) - alternate vectorization of calls with different IntrinsicIDs will require this.
3 - Allow alternates to be a different instruction type - mixing binary/cast/call etc.
4 - Allow passthrough of unsupported alternate instructions - related to PR30787/D28907 'copyable' elements.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49135
llvm-svn: 336804
We were always using the opcodes of the first 2 scalars for the costs of the alternate opcode + shuffle. This made sense when we used SK_Alternate and opcodes were guaranteed to be alternating, but this fails for the more general SK_Select case.
This fix exposes an issue demonstrated by the fmul_fdiv_v4f32_const test - the SLM model has v4f32 fdiv costs which are more than twice those of the f32 scalar cost, meaning that the cost model determines that the vectorization is not performant. Unfortunately it completely ignores the fact that the fdiv by a constant will be changed into a fmul by InstCombine for a much lower cost vectorization. But at least we're seeing this now...
llvm-svn: 336095
Alternate opcode handling only supports binary operators, these tests demonstrate missed opportunities to vectorize some sitofp/uitofp and fptosi/fptoui style casts as well as some (successful) float bits manipulations
llvm-svn: 336060
Since D46637 we are better at handling uniform/non-uniform constant Pow2 detection; this patch tweaks the SLP argument handling to support them.
As SLP works with arrays of values I don't think we can easily use the pattern match helpers here.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48214
llvm-svn: 335621
Enable tryToVectorizeList to support InstructionsState alternate opcode patterns at a root (build vector etc.) as well as further down the vectorization tree.
NOTE: This patch reduces some of the debug reporting if there are opcode mismatches - I can try to add it back if it proves a problem. But it could get rather messy trying to provide equivalent verbose debug strings via getSameOpcode etc.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48488
llvm-svn: 335364
These were being over cautious for costs for one/two op general shuffles - VSHUFPD doesn't have to replicate the same shuffle in both lanes like VSHUFPS does.
llvm-svn: 335216
D47985 saw the old SK_Alternate 'alternating' shuffle mask replaced with the SK_Select mask which accepts either input operand for each lane, equivalent to a vector select with a constant condition operand.
This patch updates SLPVectorizer to make full use of this SK_Select shuffle pattern by removing the 'isOdd()' limitation.
The AArch64 regression will be fixed by D48172.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48174
llvm-svn: 335130
In order to set breakpoints on labels and list source code around
labels, we need collect debug information for labels, i.e., label
name, the function label belong, line number in the file, and the
address label located. In order to keep these information in LLVM
IR and to allow backend to generate debug information correctly.
We create a new kind of metadata for labels, DILabel. The format
of DILabel is
!DILabel(scope: !1, name: "foo", file: !2, line: 3)
We hope to keep debug information as much as possible even the
code is optimized. So, we create a new kind of intrinsic for label
metadata to avoid the metadata is eliminated with basic block.
The intrinsic will keep existing if we keep it from optimized out.
The format of the intrinsic is
llvm.dbg.label(metadata !1)
It has only one argument, that is the DILabel metadata. The
intrinsic will follow the label immediately. Backend could get the
label metadata through the intrinsic's parameter.
We also create DIBuilder API for labels to be used by Frontend.
Frontend could use createLabel() to allocate DILabel objects, and use
insertLabel() to insert llvm.dbg.label intrinsic in LLVM IR.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45024
Patch by Hsiangkai Wang.
llvm-svn: 331841
Summary:
If the load/extractelement/extractvalue instructions are not originally
consecutive, the SLP vectorizer is unable to vectorize them. Patch
allows reordering of such instructions.
Patch does not support reordering of the repeated instruction, this must
be handled in the separate patch.
Reviewers: RKSimon, spatel, hfinkel, mkuper, Ayal, ashahid
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43776
llvm-svn: 329085
We use two approaches for determining the minimum bitwidth.
* Demanded bits
* Value tracking
If demanded bits doesn't result in a narrower type, we then try value tracking.
We need this if we want to root SLP trees with the indices of getelementptr
instructions since all the bits of the indices are demanded.
But there is a missing piece though. We need to be able to distinguish "demanded
and shrinkable" from "demanded and not shrinkable". For example, the bits of %i
in
%i = sext i32 %e1 to i64
%gep = getelementptr inbounds i64, i64* %p, i64 %i
are demanded, but we can shrink %i's type to i32 because it won't change the
result of the getelementptr. On the other hand, in
%tmp15 = sext i32 %tmp14 to i64
%tmp16 = insertvalue { i64, i64 } undef, i64 %tmp15, 0
it doesn't make sense to shrink %tmp15 and we can skip the value tracking.
Ideas are from Matthew Simpson!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44868
llvm-svn: 329035
Summary:
If the load/extractelement/extractvalue instructions are not originally
consecutive, the SLP vectorizer is unable to vectorize them. Patch
allows reordering of such instructions.
Reviewers: RKSimon, spatel, hfinkel, mkuper, Ayal, ashahid
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43776
llvm-svn: 328980
When building the SLP tree, we look for reuse among the vectorized tree
entries. However, each gather sequence is represented by a unique tree entry,
even though the sequence may be identical to another one. This means, for
example, that a gather sequence with two uses will be counted twice when
computing the cost of the tree. We should only count the cost of the definition
of a gather sequence rather than its uses. During code generation, the
redundant gather sequences are emitted, but we optimize them away with CSE. So
it looks like this problem just affects the cost model.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44742
llvm-svn: 328316
Agner's tables indicate that for SSE42+ targets (Core2 and later) we can reduce the FADD/FSUB/FMUL costs down to 1, which should fix the Himeno benchmark.
Note: the AVX512 FDIV costs look rather dodgy, but this isn't part of this patch.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43733
llvm-svn: 326133
There are too many perf regressions resulting from this, so we need to
investigate (and add tests for) targets like ARM and AArch64 before
trying to reinstate.
llvm-svn: 325658
This change was mentioned at least as far back as:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26837#c26
...and I found a real program that is harmed by this:
Himeno running on AMD Jaguar gets 6% slower with SLP vectorization:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36280
...but the change here appears to solve that bug only accidentally.
The div/rem costs for x86 look very wrong in some cases, but that's already true,
so we can fix those in follow-up patches. There's also evidence that more cost model
changes are needed to solve SLP problems as shown in D42981, but that's an independent
problem (though the solution may be adjusted after this change is made).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43079
llvm-svn: 325515
Summary:
Reversed loads are handled as gathering. But we can just reshuffle
these values. Patch adds support for vectorization of reversed loads.
Reviewers: RKSimon, spatel, mkuper, hfinkel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43022
llvm-svn: 325134
Summary:
For better vectorization result we should take into consideration the
cost of the user insertelement instructions when we try to
vectorize sequences that build the whole vector. I.e. if we have the
following scalar code:
```
<Scalar code>
insertelement <ScalarCode>, ...
```
we should consider the cost of the last `insertelement ` instructions as
the cost of the scalar code.
Reviewers: RKSimon, spatel, hfinkel, mkuper
Subscribers: javed.absar, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42657
llvm-svn: 324893
Summary:
If the same value is going to be vectorized several times in the same
tree entry, this entry is considered to be a gather entry and cost of
this gather is counter as cost of InsertElementInstrs for each gathered
value. But we can consider these elements as ShuffleInstr with
SK_PermuteSingle shuffle kind.
Reviewers: spatel, RKSimon, mkuper, hfinkel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38697
llvm-svn: 323662
Summary:
If the same value is going to be vectorized several times in the same
tree entry, this entry is considered to be a gather entry and cost of
this gather is counter as cost of InsertElementInstrs for each gathered
value. But we can consider these elements as ShuffleInstr with
SK_PermuteSingle shuffle kind.
Reviewers: spatel, RKSimon, mkuper, hfinkel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38697
llvm-svn: 323530
Summary:
If the same value is going to be vectorized several times in the same
tree entry, this entry is considered to be a gather entry and cost of
this gather is counter as cost of InsertElementInstrs for each gathered
value. But we can consider these elements as ShuffleInstr with
SK_PermuteSingle shuffle kind.
Reviewers: spatel, RKSimon, mkuper, hfinkel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38697
llvm-svn: 323441
Summary:
If the same value is going to be vectorized several times in the same
tree entry, this entry is considered to be a gather entry and cost of
this gather is counter as cost of InsertElementInstrs for each gathered
value. But we can consider these elements as ShuffleInstr with
SK_PermuteSingle shuffle kind.
Reviewers: spatel, RKSimon, mkuper, hfinkel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38697
llvm-svn: 323430
Summary:
If the same value is going to be vectorized several times in the same
tree entry, this entry is considered to be a gather entry and cost of
this gather is counter as cost of InsertElementInstrs for each gathered
value. But we can consider these elements as ShuffleInstr with
SK_PermuteSingle shuffle kind.
Reviewers: spatel, RKSimon, mkuper, hfinkel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38697
llvm-svn: 323348
Summary:
If the same value is going to be vectorized several times in the same
tree entry, this entry is considered to be a gather entry and cost of
this gather is counter as cost of InsertElementInstrs for each gathered
value. But we can consider these elements as ShuffleInstr with
SK_PermuteSingle shuffle kind.
Reviewers: spatel, RKSimon, mkuper, hfinkel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38697
llvm-svn: 323246
Summary:
If the vectorized tree has truncate to minimum required bit width and
the vector type of the cast operation after the truncation is the same
as the vector type of the cast operands, count cost of the vector cast
operation as 0, because this cast will be later removed.
Also, if the vectorization tree root operations are integer cast operations, do not consider them as candidates for truncation. It will just create extra number of the same vector/scalar operations, which will be removed by instcombiner.
Reviewers: RKSimon, spatel, mkuper, hfinkel, mssimpso
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41948
llvm-svn: 322946
Summary: Sometimes vectorization of insertelement instructions with extractelement operands may produce an extra shuffle operation, if these operands are in the reverse order. Patch tries to improve this situation by the reordering of the operands to remove this extra shuffle operation.
Reviewers: mkuper, hfinkel, RKSimon, spatel
Subscribers: mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33954
llvm-svn: 322579
Simon Pilgrim