r189189 implemented AVX512 unpack by essentially performing a 256-bit unpack
between the low and the high 256 bits of src1 into the low part of the
destination and another unpack of the low and high 256 bits of src2 into the
high part of the destination.
I don't think that's how unpack works. AVX512 unpack simply has more 128-bit
lanes but other than it works the same way as AVX. So in each 128-bit lane,
we're always interleaving certain parts of both operands rather different
parts of one of the operands.
E.g. for this:
__v16sf a = { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 };
__v16sf b = { 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 };
__v16sf c = __builtin_shufflevector(a, b, 0, 8, 1, 9, 4, 12, 5, 13, 16,
24, 17, 25, 20, 28, 21, 29);
we generated punpcklps (notice how the elements of a and b are not interleaved
in the shuffle). In turn, c was set to this:
0 16 1 17 4 20 5 21 8 24 9 25 12 28 13 29
Obviously this should have just returned the mask vector of the shuffle
vector.
I mostly reverted this change and made sure the original AVX code worked
for 512-bit vectors as well.
Also updated the tests because they matched the logic from the code.
llvm-svn: 217602
This is an extension of the change made with r215820:
http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=revision&revision=215820
That patch allowed combining of splatted vector FP constants that are multiplied.
This patch allows combining non-uniform vector FP constants too by relaxing the
check on the type of vector. Also, canonicalize a vector fmul in the
same way that we already do for scalars - if only one operand of the fmul is a
constant, make it operand 1. Otherwise, we miss potential folds.
This fold is also done by -instcombine, but it's possible that extra
fmuls may have been generated during lowering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D5254
llvm-svn: 217599
Refactored the R600_LDS_1A2D class a bit to get it to actually work.
It seemed to be previously unused and broken.
We also have to disable the conversion to the noret variant for now in
R600ISelLowering because the getLDSNoRetOp method only handles 1A1D LDS ops.
Someone can feel free to modify the AMDGPU::getLDSNoRetOp method to
work for more than 1A1D variants of LDS operations. It's being left as a
future TODO for now.
Signed-off-by: Aaron Watry <awatry at gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Matt Arsenault <matthew.arsenault@amd.com>
llvm-svn: 217596
Now that the operations are all implemented, we can test this sub-arch here.
Signed-off-by: Aaron Watry <awatry@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Matt Arsenault <matthew.arsenault@amd.com>
llvm-svn: 217595
This was only present for SI before.
Cayman may still be missing, but I am unable to test that currently.
v2: Don't create atomicrmw max tests in separate file
Signed-off-by: Aaron Watry <awatry@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Matt Arsenault <matthew.arsenault@amd.com>
CC: Tom Stellard <thomas.stellard@amd.com>
llvm-svn: 217589
Summary:
They were used in the 'Module Structure' example but weren't otherwise
documented.
Credit to Reed Kotler for noticing.
Reviewers: hans
Reviewed By: hans
Subscribers: hans, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D5191
llvm-svn: 217583
David Blaikie's commits r217563 & r217564, which added shared_ptr to the
CostPool have fixed some memory leak issues exposed by the PBQP with
coalescing constraints.
The sanitizer bot was failing because of those leaks. Now that the leaks
are gone, we can reenable the aarch64/pbqp test.
llvm-svn: 217580
We used to crash processing any relevant @llvm.assume on a 32-bit target
(because we'd ask SE to subtract expressions of differing types). I've copied
our 'simple.ll' test, but with the data layout from arm-linux-gnueabihf to get
some meaningful test coverage here.
llvm-svn: 217574
Leveraging both intrusive shared_ptr-ing (std::enable_shared_from_this)
and shared_ptr<T>-owning-U (to allow external users to hold
std::shared_ptr<CostT> while keeping the underlying PoolEntry alive).
The intrusiveness could be removed if we had a weak_set that implicitly
removed items from the set when their underlying data went away.
This /might/ fix an existing memory leak reported by LeakSanitizer in
r217504.
llvm-svn: 217563
Need to convert the 64 element offset into bytes, not just the element
size like the normal case instructions.
Noticed by inspection. This can't be hit now because
st64 instructions aren't emitted during instruction selection,
and the post-RA scheduler isn't enabled.
llvm-svn: 217560
With this a DataLayoutPass can be reused for multiple modules.
Once we have doInitialization/doFinalization, it doesn't seem necessary to pass
a Module to the constructor.
Overall this change seems in line with the idea of making DataLayout a required
part of Module. With it the only way of having a DataLayout used is to add it
to the Module.
llvm-svn: 217548
The routine that determines an alignment given some SCEV returns zero if the
answer is unknown. In a case where we could determine the increment of an
AddRec but not the starting alignment, we would compute the integer modulus by
zero (which is illegal and traps). Prevent this by returning early if either
the start or increment alignment is unknown (zero).
llvm-svn: 217544
The increase of the interleave factor to 4 has side-effects
like performance losses eg. due to reminder loops being executed
more frequently and may increase code size. It requires more
analysis and careful heuristic tuning. Expect double digit gains
in small benchmarks like lowercase.c and losses in puzzle.c.
llvm-svn: 217540
Summary:
Make CallingConv::ID a plain unsigned instead of enum with a
fixed set of valus. LLVM IR allows arbitraty calling conventions (you are
free to write cc12345), and loading them as enum is an undefined
behavior. This was reported by UBSan.
Test Plan: llvm regression test suite
Reviewers: nicholas
Reviewed By: nicholas
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D5248
llvm-svn: 217529
"Unroll" is not the appropriate name for this variable. Clang already uses
the term "interleave" in pragmas and metadata for this.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D5066
llvm-svn: 217528
Noticed while trying to understand how the merge of forward decalred types
and defintions work.
Reviewers: echristo, dblaikie, aprantl
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D5291
llvm-svn: 217514
Adam Nemet