Summary:
When handling loops whose VF is 1, fold-tail vectorization sets the
backedge taken count of the original loop with a vector of a single
element. This causes type-mismatch during instruction generartion.
The purpose of this patch is toto address the case of VF==1.
Reviewer: Ayal (Ayal Zaks), bmahjour (Bardia Mahjour), fhahn (Florian Hahn), gilr (Gil Rapaport), rengolin (Renato Golin)
Reviewed By: Ayal (Ayal Zaks), bmahjour (Bardia Mahjour), fhahn (Florian Hahn)
Subscribers: Ayal (Ayal Zaks), rkruppe (Hanna Kruppe), bmahjour (Bardia Mahjour), rogfer01 (Roger Ferrer Ibanez), vkmr (Vineet Kumar), bollu (Siddharth Bhat), hiraditya (Aditya Kumar), llvm-commits (Mailing List llvm-commits)
Tag: LLVM
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79976
LV considers an internally computed MaxVF to decide if a constant trip-count is
a multiple of any subsequently chosen VF, and conclude that no scalar remainder
iterations (tail) will be left for Fold Tail to handle. If an external VF is
provided via -force-vector-width, it must be considered instead of the internal
MaxVF.
If an external UF is provided via -force-vector-interleave, it too must be
considered in addition to MaxVF or user VF.
Fixes PR45679.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80085
For IR generated by a compiler, this is really simple: you just take the
datalayout from the beginning of the file, and apply it to all the IR
later in the file. For optimization testcases that don't care about the
datalayout, this is also really simple: we just use the default
datalayout.
The complexity here comes from the fact that some LLVM tools allow
overriding the datalayout: some tools have an explicit flag for this,
some tools will infer a datalayout based on the code generation target.
Supporting this properly required plumbing through a bunch of new
machinery: we want to allow overriding the datalayout after the
datalayout is parsed from the file, but before we use any information
from it. Therefore, IR/bitcode parsing now has a callback to allow tools
to compute the datalayout at the appropriate time.
Not sure if I covered all the LLVM tools that want to use the callback.
(clang? lli? Misc IR manipulation tools like llvm-link?). But this is at
least enough for all the LLVM regression tests, and IR without a
datalayout is not something frontends should generate.
This change had some sort of weird effects for certain CodeGen
regression tests: if the datalayout is overridden with a datalayout with
a different program or stack address space, we now parse IR based on the
overridden datalayout, instead of the one written in the file (or the
default one, if none is specified). This broke a few AVR tests, and one
AMDGPU test.
Outside the CodeGen tests I mentioned, the test changes are all just
fixing CHECK lines and moving around datalayout lines in weird places.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78403
This was reverted because of a miscompilation. At closer inspection, the
problem was actually visible in a changed llvm regression test too. This
one-line follow up fix/recommit will splat the IV, which is what we are trying
to avoid if unnecessary in general, if tail-folding is requested even if all
users are scalar instructions after vectorisation. Because with tail-folding,
the splat IV will be used by the predicate of the masked loads/stores
instructions. The previous version omitted this, which caused the
miscompilation. The original commit message was:
If tail-folding of the scalar remainder loop is applied, the primary induction
variable is splat to a vector and used by the masked load/store vector
instructions, thus the IV does not remain scalar. Because we now mark
that the IV does not remain scalar for these cases, we don't emit the vector IV
if it is not used. Thus, the vectoriser produces less dead code.
Thanks to Ayal Zaks for the direction how to fix this.
- Specifically check for sext/zext users which have 'long' form NEON
instructions.
- Add more entries to the table for sext/zexts so that we can report
more accurately the number of vmovls required for NEON.
- Pass the instruction to the pass implementation.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79561
If tail-folding of the scalar remainder loop is applied, the primary induction
variable is splat to a vector and used by the masked load/store vector
instructions, thus the IV does not remain scalar. Because we now mark
that the IV does not remain scalar for these cases, we don't emit the vector IV
if it is not used. Thus, the vectoriser produces less dead code.
Thanks to Ayal Zaks for the direction how to fix this.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78911
The improvements to the x86 vector insert/extract element costs in D74976 resulted in the estimated costs for vector initialization and scalarization increasing higher than should be expected. This is particularly noticeable on pre-SSE4 targets where the available of legal INSERT_VECTOR_ELT ops is more limited.
This patch does 2 things:
1 - it implements X86TTIImpl::getScalarizationOverhead to more accurately represent the typical costs of a ISD::BUILD_VECTOR pattern.
2 - it adds a DemandedElts mask to getScalarizationOverhead to permit the SLP's BoUpSLP::getGatherCost to be rewritten to use it directly instead of accumulating raw vector insertion costs.
This fixes PR45418 where a v4i8 (zext'd to v4i32) was no longer vectorizing.
A future patch should extend X86TTIImpl::getScalarizationOverhead to tweak the EXTRACT_VECTOR_ELT scalarization costs as well.
Reviewed By: @craig.topper
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78216
The crash that caused the original revert has been fixed in
a3c964a278. I also added a reduced version of the crash reproducer.
This reverts the revert commit 2107af9ccf.
When folding tail, branch taken count is computed during initial VPlan execution
and recorded to be used by the compare computing the loop's mask. This recording
should directly set the State, instead of reusing Value2VPValue mapping which
serves original Values present prior to vectorization.
The branch taken count may be a constant Value, which may be used elsewhere in
the loop; trying to employ Value2VPValue for both leads to the issue reported in
https://reviews.llvm.org/D76992#inline-721028
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78847
One of transforms the loop vectorizer makes is LCSSA formation. In some cases it
is the only transform it makes. We should not drop CFG analyzes if only LCSSA was
formed and no actual CFG changes was made.
We should think of expanding this logic to other passes as well, and maybe make
it a part of PM framework.
Reviewed By: Florian Hahn
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78360
This will allow us to use the datalayout to disambiguate other
constructs in IR, like load alignment. Split off from D78403.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78413
First-order recurrences require special treatment when they are live-out;
such treatment is provided by fixFirstOrderRecurrence(), so they should be
included in AllowedExit set.
(Should probably have been included originally in D16197.)
Fixes PR45526: AllowedExit set is used by prepareToFoldTailByMasking() to
check whether the treatment for live-outs also holds when folding the tail,
which is not (yet) the case for first-order recurrences.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78210
Cost-modeling decisions are tied to the compute interleave groups
(widening decisions, scalar and uniform values). When invalidating the
interleave groups, those decisions also need to be invalidated.
Otherwise there is a mis-match during VPlan construction.
VPWidenMemoryRecipes created initially are left around w/o converting them
into VPInterleave recipes. Such a conversion indeed should not take place,
and these gather/scatter recipes may in fact be right. The crux is leaving around
obsolete CM_Interleave (and dependent) markings of instructions along with
their costs, instead of recalculating decisions, costs, and recipes.
Alternatively to forcing a complete recompute later on, we could try
to selectively invalidate the decisions connected to the interleave
groups. But we would likely need to run the uniform/scalar value
detection parts again anyways and the extra complexity is probably not
worth it.
Fixes PR45572.
Reviewers: gilr, rengolin, Ayal, hsaito
Reviewed By: Ayal
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78298
Fix an assert introduced in 41ed5d856c: a phi with a single predecessor and a
mask is a valid case which is already supported by the code.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78115
D77635 added support to recognise primary induction variables for counting-down
loops. This allows us to fold the scalar tail loop into the main vector body,
which we need for MVE tail-predication. This adds some ARM tail-folding test
cases that we want to support.
This test was extracted from D76838, which implemented a different approach to
reverse and thus find a primary induction variable.
Introduce a new VPWidenCanonicalIVRecipe to generate a canonical vector
induction for use in fold-tail-with-masking, if a primary induction is absent.
The canonical scalar IV having start = 0 and step = VF*UF, created during code
-gen to control the vector loop, is widened into a canonical vector IV having
start = {<Part*VF, Part*VF+1, ..., Part*VF+VF-1> for 0 <= Part < UF} and
step = <VF*UF, VF*UF, ..., VF*UF>.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D77635
Summary:
Add mapping from exp2 math functions
to corresponding SVML calls.
This is a follow up and extension for llvm diff
https://reviews.llvm.org/D19544
Test Plan:
- update test case and run ninja check.
- run tests locally
Reviewers: wenlei, hoyFB, mmasten, mzolotukhin, spatel
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D77114
In InnerLoopVectorizer::getOrCreateTripCount, when the backedge taken
count is a SCEV add expression, its type is defined by the type of the
last operand of the add expression.
In the test case from PR45259, this last operand happens to be a
pointer, which (according to llvm::Type) does not have a primitive size
in bits. In this case, LoopVectorize fails to truncate the SCEV and
crashes as a result.
Uing ScalarEvolution::getTypeSizeInBits makes the truncation work as expected.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45259
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D76669
Also adds a force-reduction-intrinsics option for testing, for forcing
the generation of reduction intrinsics even when the backend is not
requesting them.
This tries to improve the accuracy of extract/insert element costs by accounting for subvector extraction/insertion for >128-bit vectors and the shuffling of elements to/from the 0'th index.
It also adds INSERTPS for f32 types and PINSR/PEXTR costs for integer types (at the moment we assume the same cost as MOVD/MOVQ - which isn't always true).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D74976
I added test cases that rely on the availability of the PPC target into
the general directory for the loop vectorizer. This causes failures on
bots that don't build the PPC target. Moving them to the PowerPC directory
to fix this.
A recent commit
(https://reviews.llvm.org/rG66c120f02560ef528a60924104ead66f330190f1) changed
the cost for calls to functions that have a vector version for some
vectorization factor. However, no check is performed for whether the
vectorization factor matches the current one being cost modeled. This leads to
attempts to widen call instructions to a vectorization factor for which such a
function does not exist, which in turn leads to an assertion failure.
This patch adds the check for vectorization factor (i.e. not just that the
called function has a vector version for some VF, but that it has a vector
version for this VF).
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D74944
Summary:
Previosly we simply always said that `SCEVMinMaxExpr` is too costly to expand.
But this isn't really true, it expands into just a comparison+swap pair.
And again much like with add/mul, there will be one less such pair
than the number of operands. And we need to count the cost of operands themselves.
This does change a number of testcases, and as far as i can tell,
all of these changes are improvements, in the sense that
we fixed up more latches to do the [in]equality comparison.
This concludes cost-modelling changes, no other SCEV expressions exist as of now.
This is a part of addressing [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44668 | PR44668 ]].
Reviewers: reames, mkazantsev, wmi, sanjoy
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Subscribers: hiraditya, javed.absar, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73744
Summary:
Currently, `SCEVExpander::isHighCostExpansionHelper()` has the following logic:
```
if (auto *UDivExpr = dyn_cast<SCEVUDivExpr>(S)) {
// If the divisor is a power of two and the SCEV type fits in a native
// integer (and the LHS not expensive), consider the division cheap
// irrespective of whether it occurs in the user code since it can be
// lowered into a right shift.
if (auto *SC = dyn_cast<SCEVConstant>(UDivExpr->getRHS()))
if (SC->getAPInt().isPowerOf2()) {
if (isHighCostExpansionHelper(UDivExpr->getLHS(), L, At,
BudgetRemaining, TTI, Processed))
return true;
const DataLayout &DL =
L->getHeader()->getParent()->getParent()->getDataLayout();
unsigned Width = cast<IntegerType>(UDivExpr->getType())->getBitWidth();
return DL.isIllegalInteger(Width);
}
```
Since this test does not have a datalayout specified,
`SCEVExpander::isHighCostExpansionHelper()` says that
`[[TMP2:%.*]] = lshr exact i64 [[TMP1]], 5` is high-cost, and didn't perform it.
But future patches will change that logic to solely rely on cost-model,
without any such datalayout checks, so i think it is best to show
that that change is ephemeral, and can already happen without costmodel changes.
Reviewers: reames, fhahn, sanjoy, craig.topper, RKSimon
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Subscribers: javed.absar, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73717
bo (splat X), (bo Y, OtherOp) --> bo (splat (bo X, Y)), OtherOp
This patch depends on the splat analysis enhancement in D73549.
See the test with comment:
; Negative test - mismatched splat elements
...as the motivation for that first patch.
The motivating case for reassociating splatted ops is shown in PR42174:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42174
In that example, a slight change in order-of-associative math results
in a big difference in IR and codegen. This patch gets all of the
unnecessary shuffles out of the way, but doesn't address the potential
scalarization (see D50992 or D73480 for that).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73703
This patch adds initial support for a DemandedElts mask to the internal computeKnownBits/ComputeNumSignBits methods, matching the SelectionDAG and GlobalISel equivalents.
So far only a couple of instructions have been setup to handle the DemandedElts, the remainder still using the existing 'all elements' default. The plan is to extend support as we have test coverage.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73435
Dead instructions do not need to be sunk. Currently we try and record
the recipies for them, but there are no recipes emitted for them and
there's nothing to sink. They can be removed from SinkAfter while
marking them for recording.
Fixes PR44634.
Reviewers: rengolin, hsaito, fhahn, Ayal, gilr
Reviewed By: gilr
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73423
from DenseMap to MapVector
The iteration order of LoopVectorizationLegality::Reductions matters for the
final code generation, so we better use MapVector instead of DenseMap for it
to remove the nondeterminacy. reduction-order.ll in the patch is an example
reduced from the case we saw. In the output of opt command, the order of the
select instructions in the vector.body block keeps changing from run to run
currently.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73490
The codegen for splitting a llvm.vector.reduction intrinsic into parts
will be better than the codegen for the generic reductions. This will
only directly effect when vectorization factors are specified by the
user.
Also added tests to make sure the codegen for larger reductions is OK.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72257
Currently due to the edge caching, we create wrong predicates for
branches with matching true and false successors. We will cache the
condition for the edge from the true successor, and then lookup the same
edge (src and dst are the same) for the edge to the false successor.
If both successors match, the condition should always be true. At the
moment, we cannot really create constant VPValues, but we can just
create a true condition as X | !X. Later passes will clean that up.
Fixes PR44488.
Reviewers: rengolin, hsaito, fhahn, Ayal, dorit, gilr
Reviewed By: Ayal
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73079
