This patch introduces a new VPDef class, which can be used to
manage VPValues defined by recipes/VPInstructions.
The idea here is to mirror VPUser for values defined by a recipe. A
VPDef can produce either zero (e.g. a store recipe), one (most recipes)
or multiple (VPInterleaveRecipe) result VPValues.
To traverse the def-use chain from a VPDef to its users, one has to
traverse the users of all values defined by a VPDef.
VPValues now contain a pointer to their corresponding VPDef, if one
exists. To traverse the def-use chain upwards from a VPValue, we first
need to check if the VPValue is defined by a VPDef. If it does not have
a VPDef, this means we have a VPValue that is not directly defined
iniside the plan and we are done.
If we have a VPDef, it is defined inside the region by a recipe, which
is a VPUser, and the upwards def-use chain traversal continues by
traversing all its operands.
Note that we need to add an additional field to to VPVAlue to link them
to their defs. The space increase is going to be offset by being able to
remove the SubclassID field in future patches.
Reviewed By: Ayal
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90558
This refactors VPuser to not inherit from VPValue to facilitate
introducing operations that introduce multiple VPValues (e.g.
VPInterleaveRecipe).
Reviewed By: Ayal
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84679
Summary:
Proposal and roadmap towards vector predication in LLVM.
This patch documents that
a) It is recognized that current LLVM is ill-equipped for vector predication.
b) The community is working on a solution.
c) A concrete prototype exists in the VP extension (D57504).
Reviewers: rkruppe, rengolin, cameron.mcinally, SjoerdMeijer, andrew.w.kaylor, craig.topper, sdesmalen, k-ishizaka, lattner, fhahn
Reviewed By: andrew.w.kaylor
Subscribers: rogfer01, merge_guards_bot, simoncook, s.egerton, llvm-commits, efocht
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73889
Summary:
Remove references to the multirepo and update the document to
reflect the current state of the github repository.
Reviewers: mehdi_amini, jyknight
Subscribers: jdoerfert, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58420
llvm-svn: 365645
Add some common recipes for downstream users developing on top of the
existing git mirrors. These instructions show how to migrate local
branches to the monorepo.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56550
llvm-svn: 353713
Add a list of benchmarks, applications and algorithms which are under
discussion to be added to the test-suite.
The initial list includes the the benchmarks mentioned at
https://llvm.org/PR34216, missing SPEC benchmarks, some image processing
algorithms and a few others. The bug tracker only allows adding to the
discussion, not removing, commenting, adding details to individual
benchmarks.
The first proposal was to add these benchmark into the test-suite
repository, but after a discussion, adding it to llvm/docs/Proposals
seem more appropriate. One advantage is that llvm.org will have a
browsable web page with these suggestions.
Suggested-by: Hal Finkel
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46714
llvm-svn: 345074
This patch adds a new abstraction layer to VPlan and leverages it to model the planned
instructions that manipulate masks (AND, OR, NOT), introduced during predication.
The new VPValue and VPUser classes model how data flows into, through and out
of a VPlan, forming the vertices of a planned Def-Use graph. The new
VPInstruction class is a generic single-instruction Recipe that models a
planned instruction along with its opcode, operands and users. See
VectorizationPlan.rst for more details.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38676
llvm-svn: 318645
Following the request made in https://reviews.llvm.org/D32871, the
general documentation of the Vectorization Plan is hereby placed
under docs/Proposals.
llvm-svn: 304161
This document describes the proposal to move to GitHub, and
compare the two proposals through various workflow examples,
presenting the current set of commands following by the ones
involved in each of the two proposals.
It is intended to supersede the previous "submodule proposal"
document entirely, and drive the discussion at the BoF during
the next Dev Meeting.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24167
llvm-svn: 284077
Given that other proposals are making their way through, it's better if we
specify what GitHub proposal this is, in case there are others that also
involve GitHub, but not sub-modules.
llvm-svn: 276325
This document was crafted from the various (320+) emails between 2nd June and
20th July regarding the move to GitHub. It tried to consolidate every issue that
was raised and every solution that was presented to have a GitHub repository
with sub-modules.
It *does not* try to argue whether sub-modules are better or worse than any other
Git solution, nor if Git is better than any other VCS, nor if GitHub is better
than any other free code hosting service. This is just the final conclusions of
48 days and 320 emails (plus a lot of IRC discussions) on the LLVM community.
This document will be presented at the survey that the foundation will setup for
us to decide if we move to this solution or not. It reflects what was discussed
on the lists, but it's not authoritative. If something is not clear enough,
please refer to the mailing list discussions (hint: search for "GitHub").
Review: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22463
llvm-svn: 276097
Florian Hahn