r243250 appeared to break clang/test/Analysis/dead-store.c on one of the build
slaves, but I couldn't reproduce this failure locally. Probably a false
positive as I saw this test was broken by r243246 or r243247 too but passed
later without people fixing anything.
llvm-svn: 243253
Summary:
This patch updates TargetTransformInfoImplCRTPBase::getGEPCost to consider
addressing modes. It now returns TCC_Free when the GEP can be completely folded
to an addresing mode.
I started this patch as I refactored SLSR. Function isGEPFoldable looks common
and is indeed used by some WIP of mine. So I extracted that logic to getGEPCost.
Furthermore, I noticed getGEPCost wasn't directly tested anywhere. The best
testing bed seems CostModel, but its getInstructionCost method invokes
getAddressComputationCost for GEPs which provides very coarse estimation. So
this patch also makes getInstructionCost call the updated getGEPCost for GEPs.
This change inevitably breaks some tests because the cost model changes, but
nothing looks seriously wrong -- if we believe the new cost model is the right
way to go, these tests should be updated.
This patch is not perfect yet -- the comments in some tests need to be updated.
I want to know whether this is a right approach before fixing those details.
Reviewers: chandlerc, hfinkel
Subscribers: aschwaighofer, llvm-commits, aemerson
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9819
llvm-svn: 243250
getTTI method used to get an actual TTI object.
No functionality changed. This just threads the argument and ensures
code like the inliner can correctly look up the callee's TTI rather than
using a fixed one.
The next change will use this to implement per-function subtarget usage
by TTI. The changes after that should eliminate the need for FTTI as that
will have become the default.
llvm-svn: 227730
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
llvm-svn: 227669
This patch:
1) Improves the cost model for x86 alternate shuffles (originally
added at revision 211339);
2) Teaches the Cost Model Analysis pass how to analyze alternate shuffles.
Alternate shuffles are a special kind of blend; on x86, we can often
easily lowered alternate shuffled into single blend
instruction (depending on the subtarget features).
The existing cost model didn't take into account subtarget features.
Also, it had a couple of "dead" entries for vector types that are never
legal (example: on x86 types v2i32 and v2f32 are not legal; those are
always either promoted or widened to 128-bit vector types).
The new x86 cost model takes into account what target features we have
before returning the shuffle cost (i.e. the number of instructions
after the blend is lowered/expanded).
This patch also teaches the Cost Model Analysis how to identify and analyze
alternate shuffles (i.e. 'SK_Alternate' shufflevector instructions):
- added function 'isAlternateVectorMask';
- added some logic to check if an instruction is a alternate shuffle and, in
case, call the target specific TTI to get the corresponding shuffle cost;
- added a test to verify the cost model analysis on alternate shuffles.
llvm-svn: 212296
definition below all the header #include lines, lib/Analysis/...
edition.
This one has a bit extra as there were *other* #define's before #include
lines in addition to DEBUG_TYPE. I've sunk all of them as a block.
llvm-svn: 206843
'OK_NonUniformConstValue' to identify operands which are constants but
not constant splats.
The cost model now allows returning 'OK_NonUniformConstValue'
for non splat operands that are instances of ConstantVector or
ConstantDataVector.
With this change, targets are now able to compute different costs
for instructions with non-uniform constant operands.
For example, On X86 the cost of a vector shift may vary depending on whether
the second operand is a uniform or non-uniform constant.
This patch applies the following changes:
- The cost model computation now takes into account non-uniform constants;
- The cost of vector shift instructions has been improved in
X86TargetTransformInfo analysis pass;
- BBVectorize, SLPVectorizer and LoopVectorize now know how to distinguish
between non-uniform and uniform constant operands.
Added a new test to verify that the output of opt
'-cost-model -analyze' is valid in the following configurations: SSE2,
SSE4.1, AVX, AVX2.
llvm-svn: 201272
Upcoming SLP vectorization improvements will want to be able to estimate costs
of horizontal reductions. Add infrastructure to support this.
We model reductions as a series of (shufflevector,add) tuples ultimately
followed by an extractelement. For example, for an add-reduction of <4 x float>
we could generate the following sequence:
(v0, v1, v2, v3)
\ \ / /
\ \ /
+ +
(v0+v2, v1+v3, undef, undef)
\ /
((v0+v2) + (v1+v3), undef, undef)
%rdx.shuf = shufflevector <4 x float> %rdx, <4 x float> undef,
<4 x i32> <i32 2, i32 3, i32 undef, i32 undef>
%bin.rdx = fadd <4 x float> %rdx, %rdx.shuf
%rdx.shuf7 = shufflevector <4 x float> %bin.rdx, <4 x float> undef,
<4 x i32> <i32 1, i32 undef, i32 undef, i32 undef>
%bin.rdx8 = fadd <4 x float> %bin.rdx, %rdx.shuf7
%r = extractelement <4 x float> %bin.rdx8, i32 0
This commit adds a cost model interface "getReductionCost(Opcode, Ty, Pairwise)"
that will allow clients to ask for the cost of such a reduction (as backends
might generate more efficient code than the cost of the individual instructions
summed up). This interface is excercised by the CostModel analysis pass which
looks for reduction patterns like the one above - starting at extractelements -
and if it sees a matching sequence will call the cost model interface.
We will also support a second form of pairwise reduction that is well supported
on common architectures (haddps, vpadd, faddp).
(v0, v1, v2, v3)
\ / \ /
(v0+v1, v2+v3, undef, undef)
\ /
((v0+v1)+(v2+v3), undef, undef, undef)
%rdx.shuf.0.0 = shufflevector <4 x float> %rdx, <4 x float> undef,
<4 x i32> <i32 0, i32 2 , i32 undef, i32 undef>
%rdx.shuf.0.1 = shufflevector <4 x float> %rdx, <4 x float> undef,
<4 x i32> <i32 1, i32 3, i32 undef, i32 undef>
%bin.rdx.0 = fadd <4 x float> %rdx.shuf.0.0, %rdx.shuf.0.1
%rdx.shuf.1.0 = shufflevector <4 x float> %bin.rdx.0, <4 x float> undef,
<4 x i32> <i32 0, i32 undef, i32 undef, i32 undef>
%rdx.shuf.1.1 = shufflevector <4 x float> %bin.rdx.0, <4 x float> undef,
<4 x i32> <i32 1, i32 undef, i32 undef, i32 undef>
%bin.rdx.1 = fadd <4 x float> %rdx.shuf.1.0, %rdx.shuf.1.1
%r = extractelement <4 x float> %bin.rdx.1, i32 0
llvm-svn: 190876
On certain architectures we can support efficient vectorized version of
instructions if the operand value is uniform (splat) or a constant scalar.
An example of this is a vector shift on x86.
We can efficiently support
for (i = 0 ; i < ; i += 4)
w[0:3] = v[0:3] << <2, 2, 2, 2>
but not
for (i = 0; i < ; i += 4)
w[0:3] = v[0:3] << x[0:3]
This patch adds a parameter to getArithmeticInstrCost to further qualify operand
values as uniform or uniform constant.
Targets can then choose to return a different cost for instructions with such
operand values.
A follow-up commit will test this feature on x86.
radar://13576547
llvm-svn: 178807
We make the cost for calling libm functions extremely high as emitting the
calls is expensive and causes spills (on x86) so performance suffers. We still
vectorize important calls like ceilf and friends on SSE4.1. and fabs.
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D466
llvm-svn: 176287
Check for reverse shuffles in the CostModel analysis pass and query
TargetTransform info accordingly. This allows us we can write test cases for
reverse shuffles.
radar://13171406
llvm-svn: 174932
Adds a function to target transform info to query for the cost of address
computation. The cost model analysis pass now also queries this interface.
The code in LoopVectorize adds the cost of address computation as part of the
memory instruction cost calculation. Only there, we know whether the instruction
will be scalarized or not.
Increase the penality for inserting in to D registers on swift. This becomes
necessary because we now always assume that address computation has a cost and
three is a closer value to the architecture.
radar://13097204
llvm-svn: 174713
into their new header subdirectory: include/llvm/IR. This matches the
directory structure of lib, and begins to correct a long standing point
of file layout clutter in LLVM.
There are still more header files to move here, but I wanted to handle
them in separate commits to make tracking what files make sense at each
layer easier.
The only really questionable files here are the target intrinsic
tablegen files. But that's a battle I'd rather not fight today.
I've updated both CMake and Makefile build systems (I think, and my
tests think, but I may have missed something).
I've also re-sorted the includes throughout the project. I'll be
committing updates to Clang, DragonEgg, and Polly momentarily.
llvm-svn: 171366
Sooooo many of these had incorrect or strange main module includes.
I have manually inspected all of these, and fixed the main module
include to be the nearest plausible thing I could find. If you own or
care about any of these source files, I encourage you to take some time
and check that these edits were sensible. I can't have broken anything
(I strictly added headers, and reordered them, never removed), but they
may not be the headers you'd really like to identify as containing the
API being implemented.
Many forward declarations and missing includes were added to a header
files to allow them to parse cleanly when included first. The main
module rule does in fact have its merits. =]
llvm-svn: 169131
Jingyue Wu