bitcast (shuf V, MaskC) --> shuf (bitcast V), MaskC'
This is the widen shuffle elements enhancement to D76727.
It builds on the analysis and simplifications in
D77881 and rG6a7e958a423e.
The phase ordering tests show that we can simplify inverse
shuffles across a binop in both directions (widen/narrow or
narrow/widen) now.
There's another potential transform visible in some of the
remaining TODOs - move a bitcasted operand of a shuffle
after the shuffle.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78371
Summary:
Remove usages of asserting vector getters in Type in preparation for the
VectorType refactor. The existence of these functions complicates the
refactor while adding little value.
Reviewers: rriddle, sdesmalen, efriedma
Reviewed By: efriedma
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D77259
As proposed in D77881, we'll have the related widening operation,
so this name becomes too vague.
While here, change the function signature to take an 'int' rather
than 'size_t' for the scaling factor, add an assert for overflow of
32-bits, and improve the documentation comments.
Extracting to the same index that we are going to insert back into
allows forming select ("blend") shuffles and enables further transforms.
Admittedly, this is a quick-fix for a more general problem that I'm
hoping to solve by adding transforms for patterns that start with an
insertelement.
But this might resolve some regressions known to be caused by the
extract-extract transform (although I have not gotten more details on
those yet).
In the motivating case from PR34724:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34724
The combination of subsequent instcombine and codegen transforms gets us this improvement:
vmovshdup %xmm0, %xmm2 ## xmm2 = xmm0[1,1,3,3]
vhaddps %xmm1, %xmm1, %xmm4
vmovshdup %xmm1, %xmm3 ## xmm3 = xmm1[1,1,3,3]
vaddps %xmm0, %xmm2, %xmm0
vaddps %xmm1, %xmm3, %xmm1
vshufps $200, %xmm4, %xmm0, %xmm0 ## xmm0 = xmm0[0,2],xmm4[0,3]
vinsertps $177, %xmm1, %xmm0, %xmm0 ## xmm0 = zero,xmm0[1,2],xmm1[2]
-->
vmovshdup %xmm0, %xmm2 ## xmm2 = xmm0[1,1,3,3]
vhaddps %xmm1, %xmm1, %xmm1
vaddps %xmm0, %xmm2, %xmm0
vshufps $200, %xmm1, %xmm0, %xmm0 ## xmm0 = xmm0[0,2],xmm1[0,3]
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D76623
bitcast (shuf V, MaskC) --> shuf (bitcast V), MaskC'
We do not attempt this in InstCombine because we do not want to change
types and create new shuffle ops that are potentially not lowered as
well as the original code. Here, we can check the cost model to see if
it is worthwhile.
I've aggressively enabled this transform even if the types are the same
size and/or equal cost because moving the bitcast allows InstCombine to
make further simplifications.
In the motivating cases from PR35454:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35454
...this is enough to let instcombine and the backend eliminate the
redundant shuffles, but we probably want to extend VectorCombine to
handle the inverse pattern (shuffle-of-bitcast) to get that
simplification directly in IR.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D76727
opcode (extelt V0, Ext0), (ext V1, Ext1) --> extelt (opcode (splat V0, Ext0), V1), Ext1
The first part of this patch generalizes the cost calculation to accept
different extraction indexes. The second part creates a shuffle+extract
before feeding into the existing code to create a vector op+extract.
The patch conservatively uses "TargetTransformInfo::SK_PermuteSingleSrc"
rather than "TargetTransformInfo::SK_Broadcast" (splat specifically
from element 0) because we do not have a more general "SK_Splat"
currently. That does not affect any of the current regression tests,
but we might be able to find some cost model target specialization where
that comes into play.
I suspect that we can expose some missing x86 horizontal op codegen with
this transform, so I'm speculatively adding a debug flag to disable the
binop variant of this transform to allow easier testing.
The test changes show that we're sensitive to cost model diffs (as we
should be), so that means that patches like D74976
should have better coverage.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D75689
As suggested in D75145 -
I'm not sure why, but several passes have this kind of disable/enable flag
implemented at the pass manager level. But that means we have to duplicate
the flag for both pass managers and add code to check the flag every time
the pass appears in the pipeline.
We want a debug option to see if this pass is misbehaving regardless of the
pass managers, so just add a disablement check at the single point before
any transforms run.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D75204
Code duplication (subsequently removed by refactoring) allowed
a logic discrepancy to creep in here.
We were being conservative about creating a vector binop -- but
not a vector cmp -- in the case where a vector op has the same
estimated cost as the scalar op. We want to be more aggressive
here because that can allow other combines based on reduced
instruction count/uses.
We can reverse the transform in DAGCombiner (potentially with a
more accurate cost model) if this causes regressions.
AFAIK, this does not conflict with InstCombine. We have a
scalarize transform there, but it relies on finding a constant
operand or a matching insertelement, so that means it eliminates
an extractelement from the sequence (so we won't have 2 extracts
by the time we get here if InstCombine succeeds).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D75062
This should be the last step in the current cleanup.
Follow-ups should resolve the TODO about cost calc
and enable the more general case where we extract
different elements.
getOperationCost() is not the cost we wanted; that's not the
throughput value that the rest of the calculation uses.
We may want to switch everything in this code to use the
getInstructionThroughput() wrapper to avoid these kinds of
problems, but I'll look at that as a follow-up because that
can create other logical diffs via using optional parameters
(we'd need to speculatively create the vector instruction to
make a fair(er) comparison).
binop (extelt X, C), (extelt Y, C) --> extelt (binop X, Y), C
This is a transform that has been considered for canonicalization (instcombine)
in the past because it reduces instruction count. But as shown in the x86 tests,
it's impossible to know if it's profitable without a cost model. There are many
potential target constraints to consider.
We have implemented similar transforms in the backend (DAGCombiner and
target-specific), but I don't think we have this exact fold there either (and if
we did it in SDAG, it wouldn't work across blocks).
Note: this patch was intended to handle the more general case where the extract
indexes do not match, but it got too big, so I scaled it back to this pattern
for now.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D74495
The variable was added to the initial commit via copy/paste of existing
code, but it wasn't actually used in the code. We can add it back with
the proper usage if/when that is needed.
We have several bug reports that could be characterized as "reducing scalarization",
and this topic was also raised on llvm-dev recently:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-January/138157.html
...so I'm proposing that we deal with these patterns in a new, lightweight IR vector
pass that runs before/after other vectorization passes.
There are 4 alternate options that I can think of to deal with this kind of problem
(and we've seen various attempts at all of these), but they all have flaws:
InstCombine - can't happen without TTI, but we don't want target-specific
folds there.
SDAG - too late to assist other vectorization passes; TLI is not equipped
for these kind of cost queries; limited to a single basic block.
CGP - too late to assist other vectorization passes; would need to re-implement
basic cleanups like CSE/instcombine.
SLP - doesn't fit with existing transforms; limited to a single basic block.
This initial patch/transform is based on existing code in AggressiveInstCombine:
we walk backwards through the function looking for a pattern match. But we diverge
from that cost-independent IR canonicalization pass by using TTI to decide if the
vector alternative is profitable.
We probably have at least 10 similar bug reports/patterns (binops, constants,
inserts, cheap shuffles, etc) that would fit in this pass as follow-up enhancements.
It's possible that we could iterate on a worklist to fix-point like InstCombine does,
but it's safer to start with a most basic case and evolve from there, so I didn't
try to do anything fancy with this initial implementation.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73480
Sanjay Patel