If some leaves have the same instructions to be vectorized, we may
incorrectly evaluate the best order for the root node (it is built for the
vector of instructions without repeated instructions and, thus, has less
elements than the root node). In this case we just can not try to reorder
the tree + we may calculate the wrong number of nodes that requre the
same reordering.
For example, if the root node is \<a+b, a+c, a+d, f+e\>, then the leaves
are \<a, a, a, f\> and \<b, c, d, e\>. When we try to vectorize the first
leaf, it will be shrink to \<a, b\>. If instructions in this leaf should
be reordered, the best order will be \<1, 0\>. We need to extend this
order for the root node. For the root node this order should look like
\<3, 0, 1, 2\>. This patch allows extension of the orders of the nodes
with the reused instructions.
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45263
If some leaves have the same instructions to be vectorized, we may
incorrectly evaluate the best order for the root node (it is built for the
vector of instructions without repeated instructions and, thus, has less
elements than the root node). In this case we just can not try to reorder
the tree + we may calculate the wrong number of nodes that requre the
same reordering.
For example, if the root node is \<a+b, a+c, a+d, f+e\>, then the leaves
are \<a, a, a, f\> and \<b, c, d, e\>. When we try to vectorize the first
leaf, it will be shrink to \<a, b\>. If instructions in this leaf should
be reordered, the best order will be \<1, 0\>. We need to extend this
order for the root node. For the root node this order should look like
\<3, 0, 1, 2\>. This patch allows extension of the orders of the nodes
with the reused instructions.
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45263
This is one (small) part of improving PR41312:
https://llvm.org/PR41312
As shown there and in the smaller tests here, if we have some member of the
reduction values that does not match the others, we want to push it to the
end (bring the matching members forward and together).
In the regression tests, we have 5 candidates for the 4 slots of the reduction.
If the one "wrong" compare is grouped with the others, it prevents forming the
ideal v4i1 compare reduction.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87772
For scalable type, the aggregated size is unknown at compile-time.
Skip instructions with scalable type to ensure the list of instructions
for vectorizeSimpleInstructions does not contains any scalable-vector instructions.
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87550
The test example based on PR47450 shows that we can
match non-byte-sized shifts, but those won't ever be
bswap opportunities. This isn't a full fix (we'd still
match if the shifts were by 8-bits for example), but
this should be enough until there's evidence that we
need to do more (this is a borderline case for
vectorization in the first place).
Previously we could match fcmp+select to a reduction if the fcmp had
the nonans fast math flag. But if the select had the nonans fast
math flag, InstCombine would turn it into a fminnum/fmaxnum intrinsic
before SLP gets to it. Seems fairly likely that if one of the
fcmp+select pair have the fast math flag, they both would.
My plan is to start vectorizing the fmaxnum/fminnum version soon,
but I wanted to get this code out as it had some of the strangest
fast math flag behaviors.
Other types can be handled in future patches but their uniform / non-uniform costs are more similar and don't appear to cause many vectorization issues.
The legacy SLPVectorizer has a dependency on InjectTLIMappingsLegacy.
That cannot be expressed in the new PM since they are both normal
passes. Explicitly add -inject-tli-mappings as a pass.
Reviewed By: spatel
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86492
The 1st attempt (rG557b890) was reverted because it caused miscompiles.
That bug is avoided here by changing the order of folds and as verified
in the new tests.
Original commit message:
InstCombine currently has odd rules for folding insert-extract chains to shuffles,
so we miss collapsing seemingly simple cases as shown in the tests here.
But poison makes this not quite as easy as we might have guessed. Alive2 tests to
show the subtle difference (similar to the regression tests):
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/hp4hv3 (this is ok)
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/ehEWaN (poison leakage)
SLP tends to create these patterns (as shown in the SLP tests), and this could
help with solving PR16739.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86460
InstCombine currently has odd rules for folding insert-extract chains to shuffles,
so we miss collapsing seemingly simple cases as shown in the tests here.
But poison makes this not quite as easy as we might have guessed. Alive2 tests to
show the subtle difference (similar to the regression tests):
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/hp4hv3 (this is ok)
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/ehEWaN (poison leakage)
SLP tends to create these patterns (as shown in the SLP tests), and this could
help with solving PR16739.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86460
The legacy PM alias analysis pipeline by default includes basic-aa.
When running `opt -foo-pass` under the NPM and -disable-basic-aa is not
specified, use basic-aa.
This decreases the number of check-llvm failures under NPM from 913 to 752.
Reviewed By: ychen, asbirlea
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86167
This reverts commit 52b71aa8b1.
The problem was a missing lit.local.cfg file, which was causing the
test to be incorrectly run on bots that had not built the WebAssembly
target.
8cc911fa5b refactored the `getIntrinsicInstrCost` function and was
meant to be a nonfunctional change, but it accidentally changed how
costs were calculated in the SLP vectorizer, which regressed
WebAssembly codegen and resulted in a downstream bug report at
https://github.com/emscripten-core/emscripten/issues/11449.
The fix for this regression is in D85759, and this patch just
pre-commits the test from that patch to demonstrate the regressed
behavior first.
The entries in VectorizableTree are not necessarily ordered by their
position in basic blocks. Collect them and order them by dominance so
later instructions are guaranteed to be visited first. For instructions
in different basic blocks, we only scan to the beginning of the block,
so their order does not matter, as long as all instructions in a basic
block are grouped together. Using dominance ensures a deterministic order.
The modified test case contains an example where we compute a wrong
spill cost (2) without this patch, even though there is no call between
any instruction in the bundle.
This seems to have limited practical impact, .e.g on X86 with a recent
Intel Xeon CPU with -O3 -march=native -flto on MultiSource,SPEC2000,SPEC2006
there are no binary changes.
Reviewed By: ABataev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D82444
Summary:
This patch takes the indices operands of `insertelement`/`insertvalue`
into account while generation of seed elements for `findBuildAggregate()`.
This function has kept the original order of `insert`s before.
Also this patch optimizes `findBuildAggregate()` preventing it from
redundant temporary vector allocations and its multiple reversing.
Fixes llvm.org/pr44067
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D83779
In vectorizeChainsInBlock we try to collect chains of PHI nodes
that have the same element type, but the code is relying upon
the implicit conversion from TypeSize -> uint64_t. For now, I have
modified the code to ignore PHI nodes with scalable types.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D83542
Teaches the SLPVectorizer to use vectorized library functions for
non-intrinsic calls.
This already worked for intrinsics that have vectorized library
functions, thanks to D75878, but schedules with library functions with a
vector variant were being rejected early.
- assume that there are no load/store dependencies between lib
functions with a vector variant; this would otherwise prevent the
bundle from becoming "ready"
- check during legalization that the vector variant can be used
- fix-up where we previously assumed that a call would be an intrinsic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D82550
At the moment this place does not check maximum size set
by TTI and just creates a maximum possible vectors.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D82227
The entries in VectorizableTree are not necessarily ordered by their
position in basic blocks. Collect them and order them by dominance so
later instructions are guaranteed to be visited first. For instructions
in different basic blocks, we only scan to the beginning of the block,
so their order does not matter, as long as all instructions in a basic
block are grouped together. Using dominance ensures a deterministic order.
The modified test case contains an example where we compute a wrong
spill cost (2) without this patch, even though there is no call between
any instruction in the bundle.
This seems to have limited practical impact, .e.g on X86 with a recent
Intel Xeon CPU with -O3 -march=native -flto on MultiSource,SPEC2000,SPEC2006
there are no binary changes.
Reviewers: craig.topper, RKSimon, xbolva00, ABataev, spatel
Reviewed By: ABataev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D82444
D68667 introduced a tighter limit to the number of GEPs to simplify
together. The limit was based on the vector element size of the pointer,
but the pointers themselves are not actually put in vectors.
IIUC we try to vectorize the index computations here, so we should base
the limit on the vector element size of the computation of the index.
This restores the test regression on AArch64 and also restores the
vectorization for a important pattern in SPEC2006/464.h264ref on
AArch64 (@test_i16_extend). We get a large benefit from doing a single
load up front and then processing the index computations in vectors.
Note that we could probably even further improve the AArch64 codegen, if
we would do zexts to i32 instead of i64 for the sub operands and then do
a single vector sext on the result of the subtractions. AArch64 provides
dedicated vector instructions to do so. Sketch of proof in Alive:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/A4xYAB
Reviewers: craig.topper, RKSimon, xbolva00, ABataev, spatel
Reviewed By: ABataev, spatel
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D82418
Motivating examples are seen in the PhaseOrdering tests based on:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43953#c2 - if we have
intrinsics there, some pass can fold them.
The intrinsics are still named "experimental" at this point, but
if there is no fallout from this patch, that will be a good
indicator that it is safe to finalize them.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80867
relevant aggregate build instructions only (UserCost).
Users are detected with findBuildAggregate routine and the trick is
that following SLP vectorization may end up vectorizing entire list
with smaller chunks. Cost adjustment then is applied for individual
chunks and these adjustments obviously have to be smaller than the
entire aggregate build cost.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80773
The bug is related to aggregate build cost model adjustment
that adds a bias to cost triggering vectorization of actually
unprofitable to vectorize tree.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80682
This test was failing verification because the
metadata is ill-formed. This commit is split
from D80401 because it is an independent fix
(although the test would break with that change).
Summary:
Replace any extant metadata uses of a dying instruction with undef to
preserve debug info accuracy. Some alternatives include:
- Treat Instruction like any other Value, and point its extant metadata
uses to an empty ValueAsMetadata node. This makes extant dbg.value uses
trivially dead (i.e. fair game for deletion in many passes), leading to
stale dbg.values being in effect for too long.
- Call salvageDebugInfoOrMarkUndef. Not needed to make instruction removal
correct. OTOH results in wasted work in some common cases (e.g. when all
instructions in a BasicBlock are deleted).
This came up while discussing some basic cases in
https://reviews.llvm.org/D80052.
Reviewers: jmorse, TWeaver, aprantl, dexonsmith, jdoerfert
Subscribers: jholewinski, qcolombet, hiraditya, jfb, sstefan1, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80264
This is D77454, except for stores. All the infrastructure work was done
for loads, so the remaining changes necessary are relatively small.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79968
Alexey Bataev