If both OpA and OpB is an add with NSW/NUW and with the same LHS operand,
we can guarantee that the transformation is safe if we can prove that OpA
won't overflow when IdxDiff added to the RHS of OpA.
Review: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79817
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
This reverts r319889.
Unfortunately, wrapping flags are not a part of SCEV's identity (they
do not participate in computing a hash value or in equality
comparisons) and in fact they could be assigned after the fact w/o
rebuilding a SCEV.
Grep for const_cast's to see quite a few of examples, apparently all
for AddRec's at the moment.
So, if 2 expressions get built in 2 slightly different ways: one with
flags set in the beginning, the other with the flags attached later
on, we may end up with 2 expressions which are exactly the same but
have their operands swapped in one of the commutative N-ary
expressions, and at least one of them will have "sorted by complexity"
invariant broken.
2 identical SCEV's won't compare equal by pointer comparison as they
are supposed to.
A real-world reproducer is added as a regression test: the issue
described causes 2 identical SCEV expressions to have different order
of operands and therefore compare not equal, which in its turn
prevents LoadStoreVectorizer from vectorizing a pair of consecutive
loads.
On a larger example (the source of the test attached, which is a
bugpoint) I have seen even weirder behavior: adding a constant to an
existing SCEV changes the order of the existing terms, for instance,
getAddExpr(1, ((A * B) + (C * D))) returns (1 + (C * D) + (A * B)).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40645
llvm-svn: 340777
if the top level addition in (D + (C-D + x + ...)) could be proven to
not wrap, where the choice of D also maximizes the number of trailing
zeroes of (C-D + x + ...), ensuring homogeneous behaviour of the
transformation and better canonicalization of such expressions.
This enables better canonicalization of expressions like
1 + zext(5 + 20 * %x + 24 * %y) and
zext(6 + 20 * %x + 24 * %y)
which get both transformed to
2 + zext(4 + 20 * %x + 24 * %y)
This pattern is common in address arithmetics and the transformation
makes it easier for passes like LoadStoreVectorizer to prove that 2 or
more memory accesses are consecutive and optimize (vectorize) them.
Reviewed By: mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48853
llvm-svn: 337859
The LoadStoreVectorizer thought that <1 x T> and T were the same types
when merging stores, leading to a crash later.
Patch by Erik Hogeman.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44014
llvm-svn: 326884
There are cases when we have to merge TBAA access tags with the
same base access type, but different final access types. For
example, accesses to different members of the same structure may
be vectorized into a single load or store instruction. Since we
currently assume that the tags to merge always share the same
final access type, we incorrectly return a tag that describes an
access to one of the original final access types as the generic
tag. This patch fixes that by producing generic tags for the
common type and not the final access types of the original tags.
Resolves:
PR35225: Wrong tbaa metadata after load store vectorizer due to
recent change
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35225
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39732
llvm-svn: 317682
Summary:
The code comments indicate that no effort has been spent on
handling load/stores when the size isn't a multiple of the
byte size correctly. However, the code only avoided types
smaller than 8 bits. So for example a load of an i28 could
still be considered as a candidate for vectorization.
This patch adjusts the code to behave according to the code
comment.
The test case used to hit the following assert when
trying to use "cast" an i32 to i28 using CreateBitOrPointerCast:
opt: ../lib/IR/Instructions.cpp:2565: Assertion `castIsValid(op, S, Ty) && "Invalid cast!"' failed.
#0 PrintStackTraceSignalHandler(void*)
#1 SignalHandler(int)
#2 __restore_rt
#3 __GI_raise
#4 __GI_abort
#5 __GI___assert_fail
#6 llvm::CastInst::Create(llvm::Instruction::CastOps, llvm::Value*, llvm::Type*, llvm::Twine const&, llvm::Instruction*)
#7 llvm::IRBuilder<llvm::ConstantFolder, llvm::IRBuilderDefaultInserter>::CreateBitOrPointerCast(llvm::Value*, llvm::Type*, llvm::Twine const&)
#8 (anonymous namespace)::Vectorizer::vectorizeLoadChain(llvm::ArrayRef<llvm::Instruction*>, llvm::SmallPtrSet<llvm::Instruction*, 16u>*)
Reviewers: arsenm
Reviewed By: arsenm
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39295
llvm-svn: 316663
Summary:
LSV wants to know the maximum size that can be loaded to a vector register.
On X86, this always matches the maximum register width. Implement this
accordingly and add a test to make sure that LSV can vectorize up to the
maximum permissible width on X86.
Reviewers: delena, arsenm
Reviewed By: arsenm
Subscribers: wdng, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31504
llvm-svn: 299589
Summary:
LSV was using two vector sets (heads and tails) to track pairs of adjiacent position to vectorize.
A recent optimization is trying to obtain the longest chain to vectorize and assumes the positions
in heads(H) and tails(T) match, which is not the case is there are multiple tails for the same head.
e.g.:
i1: store a[0]
i2: store a[1]
i3: store a[1]
Leads to:
H: i1
T: i2 i3
Instead of:
H: i1 i1
T: i2 i3
So the positions for instructions that follow i3 will have different indexes in H/T.
This patch resolves PR29148.
This issue also surfaced the fact that if the chain is too long, and TLI
returns a "not-fast" answer, the whole chain will be abandoned for
vectorization, even though a smaller one would be beneficial.
Added a testcase and FIXME for this.
Reviewers: tstellarAMD, arsenm, jlebar
Subscribers: mzolotukhin, wdng, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24057
llvm-svn: 280179
Summary:
TargetBaseAlign is no longer required since LSV checks if target allows misaligned accesses.
A constant defining a base alignment is still needed for stack accesses where alignment can be adjusted.
Previous patch (D22936) was reverted because tests were failing. This patch also fixes the cause of those failures:
- x86 failing tests either did not have the right target, or the right alignment.
- NVPTX failing tests did not have the right alignment.
- AMDGPU failing test (merge-stores) should allow vectorization with the given alignment but the target info
considers <3xi32> a non-standard type and gives up early. This patch removes the condition and only checks
for a maximum size allowed and relies on the next condition checking for %4 for correctness.
This should be revisited to include 3xi32 as a MVT type (on arsenm's non-immediate todo list).
Note that checking the sizeInBits for a MVT is undefined (leads to an assertion failure),
so we need to create an EVT, hence the interface change in allowsMisaligned to include the Context.
Reviewers: arsenm, jlebar, tstellarAMD
Subscribers: jholewinski, arsenm, mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23068
llvm-svn: 277735
Summary:
This helps keep us honest -- there were a number of ways we could screw
up and still have passed this test.
Reviewers: asbirlea
Subscribers: llvm-commits, arsenm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22531
llvm-svn: 276053
Summary:
LSV used to abort vectorizing a chain for interleaved load/store accesses that alias.
Allow a valid prefix of the chain to be vectorized, mark just the prefix and retry vectorizing the remaining chain.
Reviewers: llvm-commits, jlebar, arsenm
Subscribers: mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D22119
llvm-svn: 275317
Summary:
Aiming to correct the ordering of loads/stores. This patch changes the
insert point for loads to the position of the first load.
It updates the ordering method for loads to insert before, rather than after.
Before this patch the following sequence:
"load a[1], store a[1], store a[0], load a[2]"
Would incorrectly vectorize to "store a[0,1], load a[1,2]".
The correctness check was assuming the insertion point for loads is at
the position of the first load, when in practice it was at the last
load. An alternative fix would have been to invert the correctness check.
The current fix changes insert position but also requires reordering of
instructions before the vectorized load.
Updated testcases to reflect the changes.
Reviewers: tstellarAMD, llvm-commits, jlebar, arsenm
Subscribers: mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D22071
llvm-svn: 275117
Summary:
GetBoundryInstruction returns the last instruction as the instruction which follows or end(). Otherwise the last instruction in the boundry set is not being tested by isVectorizable().
Partially solve reordering of instructions. More extensive solution to follow.
Reviewers: tstellarAMD, llvm-commits, jlebar
Subscribers: escha, arsenm, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D21934
llvm-svn: 274389
Volkan Keles