a6f0221276 enabled intersection of FMF on reduction instructions,
so it is safe to ease the check here.
There is still some room to improve here - it looks like we
have nearly duplicate flags propagation logic inside of the
LoopUtils helper but it is limited targets that do not form
reduction intrinsics (they form the shuffle expansion).
As shown in the test diffs, we could miscompile by
propagating flags that did not exist in the original
code.
The flags required for fmin/fmax reductions will be
fixed in a follow-up patch.
Walking the use list of a Constant (particularly, ConstantData)
is not scalable, since a given constant may be used by many
instructinos in many functions in many modules.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94713
This is NFC-intended and removes the "OperationData"
class which had become nothing more than a recurrence
(reduction) type.
I adjusted the matching logic to distinguish
instructions from non-instructions - that's all that
the "IsLeafValue" member was keeping track of.
We were able to remove almost all of the state from
OperationData, so these don't make sense as members
of that class - just pass the RecurKind in as a param.
More streamlining is possible, but I'm trying to avoid
logic/typo bugs while fixing this. Eventually, we should
not need the `OperationData` class.
We were able to remove almost all of the state from
OperationData, so these don't make sense as members
of that class - just pass the RecurKind in as a param.
After much refactoring over the last 2 weeks to the reduction
matching code, I think this change is finally ready.
We effectively broke fmax/fmin vector reduction optimization
when we started canonicalizing to intrinsics in instcombine,
so this should restore that functionality for SLP.
There are still FMF problems here as noted in the code comments,
but we should be avoiding miscompiles on those for fmax/fmin by
restricting to full 'fast' ops (negative tests are included).
Fixing FMF propagation is a planned follow-up.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94913
This will avoid confusion once we start matching
min/max intrinsics. All of these hacks to accomodate
cmp+sel idioms should disappear once we canonicalize
to min/max intrinsics.
The icmp opcode is now hard-coded in the cost model call.
This will make it easier to eventually remove all opcode
queries for min/max patterns as we transition to intrinsics.
This is NFC-intended and another step towards supporting
intrinsics as reduction candidates.
The remaining bits of the OperationData class do not make
much sense as-is, so I will try to improve that, but I'm
trying to take minimal steps because it's still not clear
how this was intended to work.
This is another NFC-intended patch to allow matching
intrinsics (example: maxnum) as candidates for reductions.
It's possible that the loop/if logic can be reduced now,
but it's still difficult to understand how this all works.
To get into this block we had: !A || B || C
and we checked C in the first 'if' clause
leaving !A || B. But the 2nd 'if' is checking:
A && !B --> !(!A || B)
This is NFC-intended. I'm still trying to figure out
how the loop where this is used works. It does not
seem like we require this data at all, but it's
hard to confirm given the complicated predicates.
In the spirit of commit fc783e91e0 (llvm-svn: 248943) we
shouldn't vectorize stores of non-packed types (i.e. types that
has padding between consecutive variables in a scalar layout,
but being packed in a vector layout).
The problem was detected as a miscompile in a downstream test case.
Reviewed By: anton-afanasyev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94446
A severe compile-time slowdown from this call is noted in:
https://llvm.org/PR48689
My naive fix was to put it under LLVM_DEBUG ( 267ff79 ),
but that's not limiting in the way we want.
This is a quick fix (or we could just remove the call completely
and rely on some later pass to discover potentially wrong IR?).
A bigger/better fix would be to improve/limit verifyFunction()
as noted in:
https://llvm.org/PR47712
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94328
As noted in PR48689, the verifier may have some kind
of exponential behavior that should be addressed
separately. For now, only run it in debug mode to
prevent problems for release+asserts.
That limit is what we had before D80401, and I'm
not sure if there was a reason to change it in that
patch.
After merging the shuffles, we cannot rely on the previous shuffle
anymore and need to shrink the final shuffle, if it is required.
Reported in D92668
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93967
Similar to 5a1d31a28 -
This should be no-functional-change because the reduction kind
opcodes are 1-for-1 mappings to the instructions we are matching
as reductions. But we want to remove the need for the
`OperationData` opcode field because that does not work when
we start matching intrinsics (eg, maxnum) as reduction candidates.
This patch makes SLP and LV emit operations with initial vectors set to poison constant instead of undef.
This is a part of efforts for using poison vector instead of undef to represent "doesn't care" vector.
The goal is to make nice shufflevector optimizations valid that is currently incorrect due to the tricky interaction between undef and poison (see https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44185 ).
Reviewed By: fhahn
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94061
This should be no-functional-change because the reduction kind
opcodes are 1-for-1 mappings to the instructions we are matching
as reductions. But we want to remove the need for the
`OperationData` opcode field because that does not work when
we start matching intrinsics (eg, maxnum) as reduction candidates.
SLP tries to model 2 forms of vector reductions: pairwise and splitting.
From the cost model code comments, those are defined using an example as:
/// Pairwise:
/// (v0, v1, v2, v3)
/// ((v0+v1), (v2+v3), undef, undef)
/// Split:
/// (v0, v1, v2, v3)
/// ((v0+v2), (v1+v3), undef, undef)
I don't know the full history of this functionality, but it was partly
added back in D29402. There are apparently no users at this point (no
regression tests change). X86 might have managed to work-around the need
for this through cost model and codegen improvements.
Removing this code makes it easier to continue the work that was started
in D87416 / D88193. The alternative -- if there is some target that is
silently using this option -- is to move this logic into LoopUtils. We
have related/duplicate functionality there via llvm::createTargetReduction().
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93860
While here, rename the inaccurate getRecurrenceBinOp()
because that was also used to get CmpInst opcodes.
The recurrence/reduction kind should always refer to the
expected opcode for a reduction. SLP appears to be the
only direct caller of createSimpleTargetReduction(), and
that calling code ideally should not be carrying around
both an opcode and a reduction kind.
This should allow us to generalize reduction matching to
use intrinsics instead of only binops.
This is almost all mechanical search-and-replace and
no-functional-change-intended (NFC). Having a single
enum makes it easier to match/reason about the
reduction cases.
The goal is to remove `Opcode` from reduction matching
code in the vectorizers because that makes it harder to
adapt the code to handle intrinsics.
The code in RecurrenceDescriptor::AddReductionVar() is
the only place that required closer inspection. It uses
a RecurrenceDescriptor and a second InstDesc to sometimes
overwrite part of the struct. It seem like we should be
able to simplify that logic, but it's not clear exactly
which cmp+sel patterns that we are trying to handle/avoid.
I don't know if there's some way this changes what the vectorizers
may produce for reductions, but I have added test coverage with
3567908 and 5ced712 to show that both passes already have bugs in
this area. Hopefully this does not make things worse before we can
really fix it.
I'm not sure if the SLP enum was created before the IVDescriptor
RecurrenceDescriptor / RecurrenceKind existed, but the code in
SLP is now redundant with that class, so it just makes things
more complicated to have both. We eventually call LoopUtils
createSimpleTargetReduction() to create reduction ops, so we
might as well standardize on those enum names.
There's still a question of whether we need to use TTI::ReductionFlags
vs. MinMaxRecurrenceKind, but that can be another clean-up step.
Another option would just be to flatten the enums in RecurrenceDescriptor
into a single enum. There isn't much benefit (smaller switches?) to
having a min/max subset.
I am hoping to extend the reduction matching code, and it is
hard to distinguish "ReductionData" from "ReducedValueData".
So extend the tree/root metaphor to include leaves.
Another problem is that the name "OperationData" does not
provide insight into its purpose. I'm not sure if we can alter
that underlying data structure to make the code clearer.
Sander de Smalen