The assert that caused this to be reverted should be fixed now.
Original commit message:
This patch changes our defualt legalization behavior for 16, 32, and
64 bit vectors with i8/i16/i32/i64 scalar types from promotion to
widening. For example, v8i8 will now be widened to v16i8 instead of
promoted to v8i16. This keeps the elements widths the same and pads
with undef elements. We believe this is a better legalization strategy.
But it carries some issues due to the fragmented vector ISA. For
example, i8 shifts and multiplies get widened and then later have
to be promoted/split into vXi16 vectors.
This has the potential to cause regressions so we wanted to get
it in early in the 10.0 cycle so we have plenty of time to
address them.
Next steps will be to merge tests that explicitly test the command
line option. And then we can remove the option and its associated
code.
llvm-svn: 368183
This patch changes our defualt legalization behavior for 16, 32, and
64 bit vectors with i8/i16/i32/i64 scalar types from promotion to
widening. For example, v8i8 will now be widened to v16i8 instead of
promoted to v8i16. This keeps the elements widths the same and pads
with undef elements. We believe this is a better legalization strategy.
But it carries some issues due to the fragmented vector ISA. For
example, i8 shifts and multiplies get widened and then later have
to be promoted/split into vXi16 vectors.
This has the potential to cause regressions so we wanted to get
it in early in the 10.0 cycle so we have plenty of time to
address them.
Next steps will be to merge tests that explicitly test the command
line option. And then we can remove the option and its associated
code.
llvm-svn: 367901
This patch uses the mechanism from D62995 to strengthen the
definitions of the reduction intrinsics by letting the scalar
result/accumulator type be overloaded from the vector element type.
For example:
; The LLVM LangRef specifies that the scalar result must equal the
; vector element type, but this is not checked/enforced by LLVM.
declare i32 @llvm.experimental.vector.reduce.or.i32.v4i32(<4 x i32> %a)
This patch changes that into:
declare i32 @llvm.experimental.vector.reduce.or.v4i32(<4 x i32> %a)
Which has the type-constraint more explicit and causes LLVM to check
the result type with the vector element type.
Reviewers: RKSimon, arsenm, rnk, greened, aemerson
Reviewed By: arsenm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62996
llvm-svn: 363240
The original costs stopped at SSE42, I've added conservative estimates for everything down to SSE1/SSE2 and moved some of the SSE42 costs to SSE41 (really only the addition of PCMPGT makes any difference).
I've also added missing vXi8 costs (we use PHMINPOSUW for i8/i16 for scarily quick results) and 256-bit vector costs for AVX1.
llvm-svn: 360528
Prior to SSE41 (and sometimes on AVX1), vector select has to be performed as a ((X & C)|(Y & ~C)) bit select.
Exposes a couple of issues with the min/max reduction costs (which only go down to SSE42 for some reason).
The increase pre-SSE41 selection costs also prevent a couple of tests from firing any longer, so I've either tweaked the target or added AVX tests as well to the existing SSE2 tests.
llvm-svn: 351685
Summary: The comment says we need 3 extracts and a select at the end. But didn't we just account for the select in the vector cost above. Aren't we just extracting the single element after taking the min/max in the vector register?
Reviewers: RKSimon, spatel, ABataev
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Subscribers: javed.absar, kristof.beyls, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55480
llvm-svn: 348739
We were overcounting the number of arithmetic operations needed at each level before we reach a legal type. We were using the full vector type for that level, but we are going to split the input vector at that level in half. So the effective arithmetic operation cost at that level is half the width.
So for example on 8i32 on an sse target. Were were calculating the cost of an 8i32 op which is likely 2 for basic integer. Then after the loop we count 2 more v4i32 ops. For a total arith cost of 4. But if you look at the assembly there would only be 3 arithmetic ops.
There are still more bugs in this code that I'm going to work on next. The non pairwise code shouldn't count extract subvectors in the loop. There are no extracts, the types are split in registers. For pairwise we need to use 2 two src permute shuffles.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55397
llvm-svn: 348621
We were adding the entire scalarization extraction cost for reductions, which returns the total cost of extracting every element of a vector type.
For reductions we don't need to do this - we just need to extract the 0'th element after the reduction pattern has completed.
Fixes PR37731
Rebased and reapplied after being reverted in rL347541 due to PR39774 - which was fixed by D54955/rL347759 and D55017/rL347997
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54585
llvm-svn: 348076
This reverts commit r346970.
It was causing PR39774, a crash in slp-vectorizer on a rather simple loop
with just a bunch of 'and's in the body.
llvm-svn: 347541
We were adding the entire scalarization extraction cost for reductions, which returns the total cost of extracting every element of a vector type.
For reductions we don't need to do this - we just need to extract the 0'th element after the reduction pattern has completed.
Fixes PR37731
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54585
llvm-svn: 346970
Correct costings of SK_ExtractSubvector requires the SubTy argument to indicate the type/size of the extracted subvector.
Unlike the rest of the shuffle kinds this means that the main Ty argument represents the source vector type not the destination!
I've done my best to fix a number of vectorizer uses:
SLP - the reduction epilogue costs should be using a SK_PermuteSingleSrc shuffle as these all occur at the hardware vector width - we're not extracting (illegal) subvector types. This is causing the cost model diffs as SK_ExtractSubvector costs are poorly handled and tend to just return 1 at the moment.
LV - I'm not clear on what the SK_ExtractSubvector should represents for recurrences - I've used a <1 x ?> subvector extraction as that seems to match the VF delta.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53573
llvm-svn: 345617
Craig Topper