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
The primary issue here is that using NDEBUG alone isn't enough to guard
debug printing -- instead the DEBUG() macro needs to be used so that the
specific pass debug logging check is employed. Without this, every
asserts-enabled build was printing out information when it hit this.
I also fixed another place where we had multiple statements in a DEBUG
macro to use {}s to be a bit cleaner. And I fixed a place that used
errs() rather than dbgs().
llvm-svn: 329082
The primary issue here is that using NDEBUG alone isn't enough to guard
debug printing -- instead the DEBUG() macro needs to be used so that the
specific pass debug logging check is employed. Without this, every
asserts-enabled build was printing out information when it hit this.
I also fixed another place where we had multiple statements in a DEBUG
macro to use {}s to be a bit cleaner. And I fixed a place that used
`errs()` rather than `dbgs()`.
llvm-svn: 329046
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
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
Summary:
Fixes the bug with incorrect handling of InsertValue|InsertElement
instrucions in SLP vectorizer. Currently, we may use incorrect
ExtractElement instructions as the operands of the original
InsertValue|InsertElement instructions.
Reviewers: mkuper, hfinkel, RKSimon, spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41767
llvm-svn: 321994
Summary:
If the vectorized value is marked as extra reduction argument, its users
are not considered as external users. Patch fixes this.
Reviewers: mkuper, hfinkel, RKSimon, spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41786
llvm-svn: 321993
The approach was never discussed, I wasn't able to reproduce this
non-determinism, and the original author went AWOL.
After a discussion on the ML, Philip suggested to revert this.
llvm-svn: 321974
In SLPVectorizer, the vector build instructions (insertvalue for aggregate type) is passed to BoUpSLP.buildTree, it is treated as UserIgnoreList, so later in cost estimation, the cost of these instructions are not counted.
For aggregate value, later usage are more likely to be done in scalar registers, either used as individual scalars or used as a whole for function call or return value. Ignore scalar extraction instructions may cause too aggressive vectorization for aggregate values, and slow down performance. So for vectorization of aggregate value, the scalar extraction instructions are required in cost estimation.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41139
llvm-svn: 320736
Summary:
This patch tries to vectorize loads of consecutive memory accesses, accessed
in non-consecutive or jumbled way. An earlier attempt was made with patch D26905
which was reverted back due to some basic issue with representing the 'use mask' of
jumbled accesses.
This patch fixes the mask representation by recording the 'use mask' in the usertree entry.
Change-Id: I9fe7f5045f065d84c126fa307ef6ebe0787296df
Reviewers: mkuper, loladiro, Ayal, zvi, danielcdh
Reviewed By: Ayal
Subscribers: mgrang, dcaballe, hans, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36130
llvm-svn: 320548
It causes builds to fail with "Instruction does not dominate all uses" (PR35497).
> Patch tries to improve vectorization of the following code:
>
> void add1(int * __restrict dst, const int * __restrict src) {
> *dst++ = *src++;
> *dst++ = *src++ + 1;
> *dst++ = *src++ + 2;
> *dst++ = *src++ + 3;
> }
> Allows to vectorize even if the very first operation is not a binary add, but just a load.
>
> Fixed issues related to previous commit.
>
> Reviewers: spatel, mzolotukhin, mkuper, hfinkel, RKSimon, filcab, ABataev
>
> Reviewed By: ABataev, RKSimon
>
> Subscribers: llvm-commits, RKSimon
>
> Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28907
llvm-svn: 319550
Patch tries to improve vectorization of the following code:
void add1(int * __restrict dst, const int * __restrict src) {
*dst++ = *src++;
*dst++ = *src++ + 1;
*dst++ = *src++ + 2;
*dst++ = *src++ + 3;
}
Allows to vectorize even if the very first operation is not a binary add, but just a load.
Fixed issues related to previous commit.
Reviewers: spatel, mzolotukhin, mkuper, hfinkel, RKSimon, filcab, ABataev
Reviewed By: ABataev, RKSimon
Subscribers: llvm-commits, RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28907
llvm-svn: 319531
properlyDominates() shouldn't be used as sort key. It causes different output between stdlibc++ and libc++.
Instead, I introduced RPOT. In most cases, it works for CSE.
llvm-svn: 318743
Summary:
Added more remarks to SLP pass, in particular "missed" optimization remarks.
Also proposed several tests for new functionality.
Patch by Vladimir Miloserdov!
For reference you may look at: https://reviews.llvm.org/rL302811
Reviewers: anemet, fhahn
Reviewed By: anemet
Subscribers: javed.absar, lattner, petecoup, yakush, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38367
llvm-svn: 318307
It crashes building sqlite; see reply on the llvm-commits thread.
> [SLPVectorizer] Failure to beneficially vectorize 'copyable' elements in integer binary ops.
>
> Patch tries to improve vectorization of the following code:
>
> void add1(int * __restrict dst, const int * __restrict src) {
> *dst++ = *src++;
> *dst++ = *src++ + 1;
> *dst++ = *src++ + 2;
> *dst++ = *src++ + 3;
> }
> Allows to vectorize even if the very first operation is not a binary add, but just a load.
>
> Fixed issues related to previous commit.
>
> Reviewers: spatel, mzolotukhin, mkuper, hfinkel, RKSimon, filcab, ABataev
>
> Reviewed By: ABataev, RKSimon
>
> Subscribers: llvm-commits, RKSimon
>
> Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28907
llvm-svn: 318239
Patch tries to improve vectorization of the following code:
void add1(int * __restrict dst, const int * __restrict src) {
*dst++ = *src++;
*dst++ = *src++ + 1;
*dst++ = *src++ + 2;
*dst++ = *src++ + 3;
}
Allows to vectorize even if the very first operation is not a binary add, but just a load.
Fixed issues related to previous commit.
Reviewers: spatel, mzolotukhin, mkuper, hfinkel, RKSimon, filcab, ABataev
Reviewed By: ABataev, RKSimon
Subscribers: llvm-commits, RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28907
llvm-svn: 318193
Summary:
The analysis of the store sequence goes in straight order - from the
first store to the last. Bu the best opportunity for vectorization will
happen if we're going to use reverse order - from last store to the
first. It may be best because usually users have some initialization
part + further processing and this first initialization may confuse
SLP vectorizer.
Reviewers: RKSimon, hfinkel, mkuper, spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39606
llvm-svn: 317821
This patch implements Chandler's idea [0] for supporting languages that
require support for infinite loops with side effects, such as Rust, providing
part of a solution to bug 965 [1].
Specifically, it adds an `llvm.sideeffect()` intrinsic, which has no actual
effect, but which appears to optimization passes to have obscure side effects,
such that they don't optimize away loops containing it. It also teaches
several optimization passes to ignore this intrinsic, so that it doesn't
significantly impact optimization in most cases.
As discussed on llvm-dev [2], this patch is the first of two major parts.
The second part, to change LLVM's semantics to have defined behavior
on infinite loops by default, with a function attribute for opting into
potential-undefined-behavior, will be implemented and posted for review in
a separate patch.
[0] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-July/088103.html
[1] https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=965
[2] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-October/118632.html
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38336
llvm-svn: 317729
Patch tries to improve vectorization of the following code:
void add1(int * __restrict dst, const int * __restrict src) {
*dst++ = *src++;
*dst++ = *src++ + 1;
*dst++ = *src++ + 2;
*dst++ = *src++ + 3;
}
Allows to vectorize even if the very first operation is not a binary add, but just a load.
Fixed PR34619 and other issues related to previous commit.
Reviewers: spatel, mzolotukhin, mkuper, hfinkel, RKSimon, filcab, ABataev
Reviewed By: ABataev, RKSimon
Subscribers: llvm-commits, RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28907
llvm-svn: 317618
As discussed on llvm-dev:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-November/107104.html
and again more recently:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-October/118118.html
...this is a step in cleaning up our fast-math-flags implementation in IR to better match
the capabilities of both clang's user-visible flags and the backend's flags for SDNode.
As proposed in the above threads, we're replacing the 'UnsafeAlgebra' bit (which had the
'umbrella' meaning that all flags are set) with a new bit that only applies to algebraic
reassociation - 'AllowReassoc'.
We're also adding a bit to allow approximations for library functions called 'ApproxFunc'
(this was initially proposed as 'libm' or similar).
...and we're out of bits. 7 bits ought to be enough for anyone, right? :) FWIW, I did
look at getting this out of SubclassOptionalData via SubclassData (spacious 16-bits),
but that's apparently already used for other purposes. Also, I don't think we can just
add a field to FPMathOperator because Operator is not intended to be instantiated.
We'll defer movement of FMF to another day.
We keep the 'fast' keyword. I thought about removing that, but seeing IR like this:
%f.fast = fadd reassoc nnan ninf nsz arcp contract afn float %op1, %op2
...made me think we want to keep the shortcut synonym.
Finally, this change is binary incompatible with existing IR as seen in the
compatibility tests. This statement:
"Newer releases can ignore features from older releases, but they cannot miscompile
them. For example, if nsw is ever replaced with something else, dropping it would be
a valid way to upgrade the IR."
( http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#ir-backwards-compatibility )
...provides the flexibility we want to make this change without requiring a new IR
version. Ie, we're not loosening the FP strictness of existing IR. At worst, we will
fail to optimize some previously 'fast' code because it's no longer recognized as
'fast'. This should get fixed as we audit/squash all of the uses of 'isFast()'.
Note: an inter-dependent clang commit to use the new API name should closely follow
commit.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39304
llvm-svn: 317488
All the buildbots are red, e.g.
http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-cmake-aarch64-lld/builds/2436/
> Summary:
> This patch tries to vectorize loads of consecutive memory accesses, accessed
> in non-consecutive or jumbled way. An earlier attempt was made with patch D26905
> which was reverted back due to some basic issue with representing the 'use mask' of
> jumbled accesses.
>
> This patch fixes the mask representation by recording the 'use mask' in the usertree entry.
>
> Change-Id: I9fe7f5045f065d84c126fa307ef6ebe0787296df
>
> Reviewers: mkuper, loladiro, Ayal, zvi, danielcdh
>
> Reviewed By: Ayal
>
> Subscribers: hans, mzolotukhin
>
> Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36130
llvm-svn: 314824
Summary:
This patch tries to vectorize loads of consecutive memory accesses, accessed
in non-consecutive or jumbled way. An earlier attempt was made with patch D26905
which was reverted back due to some basic issue with representing the 'use mask' of
jumbled accesses.
This patch fixes the mask representation by recording the 'use mask' in the usertree entry.
Change-Id: I9fe7f5045f065d84c126fa307ef6ebe0787296df
Reviewers: mkuper, loladiro, Ayal, zvi, danielcdh
Reviewed By: Ayal
Subscribers: hans, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36130
llvm-svn: 314806
