x86-64 is an invalid architecture in triples. Changing it to the correct
triple (x86_64) changes some tests, because SLP is not deemed profitable
any more.
Reviewers: ABataev, RKSimon, spatel
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58931
llvm-svn: 355420
This requires a couple of tweaks to existing vectorization functions as they were assuming that only the second call argument (ctlz/cttz/powi) could ever be the 'always scalar' argument, but for smul.fix + umul.fix its the third argument.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58616
llvm-svn: 354790
As this has broken the lto bootstrap build for 3 days and is
showing a significant regression on the Dither_benchmark results (from
the LLVM benchmark suite) -- specifically, on the
BENCHMARK_FLOYD_DITHER_128, BENCHMARK_FLOYD_DITHER_256, and
BENCHMARK_FLOYD_DITHER_512; the others are unchanged. These have
regressed by about 28% on Skylake, 34% on Haswell, and over 40% on
Sandybridge.
This reverts commit r353923.
llvm-svn: 354434
Try to use 64-bit SLP vectorization. In addition to horizontal instrs
this change triggers optimizations for partial vector operations (for instance,
using low halfs of 128-bit registers xmm0 and xmm1 to multiply <2 x float> by
<2 x float>).
Fixes llvm.org/PR32433
llvm-svn: 353923
Add generic costs calculation for SADDSAT/SSUBSAT intrinsics, this uses generic costs for sadd_with_overflow/ssub_with_overflow, an extra sign comparison + a selects based on the sign/overflow.
This completes PR40316
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57239
llvm-svn: 352315
For the power9 CPU, vector operations consume a pair of execution units rather
than one execution unit like a scalar operation. Update the target transform
cost functions to reflect the higher cost of vector operations when targeting
Power9.
Patch by RolandF.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55461
llvm-svn: 352261
Add generic costs calculation for UADDSAT/USUBSAT intrinsics, this fallbacks to using generic costs for uadd_with_overflow/usub_with_overflow + a select.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56907
llvm-svn: 352044
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:
Sometimes the SLP vectorizer tries to vectorize the horizontal reduction
nodes during regular vectorization. This may happen inside of the loops,
when there are some vectorizable PHIs. Patch fixes this by checking if
the node is the reduction node and thus it must not be vectorized, it must
be gathered.
Reviewers: RKSimon, spatel, hfinkel, fedor.sergeev
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56783
llvm-svn: 351349
official Git repository.
Remove the directions for using git-svn, and demote the prominence of
the svn instructions.
Also, fix a few other issues while I'm in there:
* Mention LLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS more.
* Getting started doesn't need to mention test-suite, but should
mention clang and the other projects.
* Remove mentions of "configure", since that's long gone.
I've also adjusted a few other mentions of svn to point to github, but
have not done so comprehensively.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56654
llvm-svn: 351130
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
Summary:
An additional fix for PR39774. Need to update the references for the
RedcutionRoot instruction when it is replaced during the vectorization
phase to avoid compiler crash on reduction vectorization.
Reviewers: RKSimon, spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55017
llvm-svn: 347997
Summary:
If the original reduction root instruction was vectorized, it might be
removed from the tree. It means that the insertion point may become
invalidated and the whole vectorization of the reduction leads to the
incorrect output result.
The ReductionRoot instruction must be marked as externally used so it
could not be removed. Otherwise it might cause inconsistency with the
cost model and we may end up with too optimistic optimization.
Reviewers: RKSimon, spatel, hfinkel, mkuper
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54955
llvm-svn: 347759
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
Expand arithmetic reduction to include mul/and/or/xor instructions.
This patch just fixes the SLPVectorizer - the effective reduction costs for AVX1+ are still poor (see rL344846) and will need to be improved before SLP sees this as a valid transform - but we can already see the effect on SSE2 tests.
This partially helps PR37731, but doesn't fix it all as it still falls over on the extraction/reduction order for some reason.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53473
llvm-svn: 345037
We miss arithmetic reduction for everything but Add/FAdd (I assume because that's the only cases which x86 has horizontal ops for.....)
llvm-svn: 344849
In the case of soft-fp (e.g. fp128 under wasm) the result of
getTypeLegalizationCost() can be an integer type even if the input is
floating point (See LegalizeTypeAction::TypeSoftenFloat).
Before calling isFabsFree() (which asserts if given a non-fp
type) we need to check that that result is fp. This is safe since in
fabs is certainly not free in the soft-fp case.
Fixes PR39168
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52899
llvm-svn: 344069
Summary:
Reworked the previously committed patch to insert shuffles for reused
extract element instructions in the correct position. Previous logic was
incorrect, and might lead to the crash with PHIs and EH instructions.
Reviewers: efriedma, javed.absar
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50143
llvm-svn: 339166
Summary:
If the ExtractElement instructions can be optimized out during the
vectorization and we need to reshuffle the parent vector, this
ShuffleInstruction may be inserted in the wrong place causing compiler
to produce incorrect code.
Reviewers: spatel, RKSimon, mkuper, hfinkel, javed.absar
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49928
llvm-svn: 338380
as well as sext(C + x + ...) -> (D + sext(C-D + x + ...))<nuw><nsw>
similar to the equivalent transformation for zext's
if the top level addition in (D + (C-D + x * n)) could be proven to
not wrap, where the choice of D also maximizes the number of trailing
zeroes of (C-D + x * n), ensuring homogeneous behaviour of the
transformation and better canonicalization of such AddRec's
(indeed, there are 2^(2w) different expressions in `B1 + ext(B2 + Y)` form for
the same Y, but only 2^(2w - k) different expressions in the resulting `B3 +
ext((B4 * 2^k) + Y)` form, where w is the bit width of the integral type)
This patch generalizes sext(C1 + C2*X) --> sext(C1) + sext(C2*X) and
sext{C1,+,C2} --> sext(C1) + sext{0,+,C2} transformations added in
r209568 relaxing the requirements the following way:
1. C2 doesn't have to be a power of 2, it's enough if it's divisible by 2
a sufficient number of times;
2. C1 doesn't have to be less than C2, instead of extracting the entire
C1 we can split it into 2 terms: (00...0XXX + YY...Y000), keep the
second one that may cause wrapping within the extension operator, and
move the first one that doesn't affect wrapping out of the extension
operator, enabling further simplifications;
3. C1 and C2 don't have to be positive, splitting C1 like shown above
produces a sum that is guaranteed to not wrap, signed or unsigned;
4. in AddExpr case there could be more than 2 terms, and in case of
AddExpr the 2nd and following terms and in case of AddRecExpr the
Step component don't have to be in the C2*X form or constant
(respectively), they just need to have enough trailing zeros,
which in turn could be guaranteed by means other than arithmetics,
e.g. by a pointer alignment;
5. the extension operator doesn't have to be a sext, the same
transformation works and profitable for zext's as well.
Apparently, optimizations like SLPVectorizer currently fail to
vectorize even rather trivial cases like the following:
double bar(double *a, unsigned n) {
double x = 0.0;
double y = 0.0;
for (unsigned i = 0; i < n; i += 2) {
x += a[i];
y += a[i + 1];
}
return x * y;
}
If compiled with `clang -std=c11 -Wpedantic -Wall -O3 main.c -S -o - -emit-llvm`
(!{!"clang version 7.0.0 (trunk 337339) (llvm/trunk 337344)"})
it produces scalar code with the loop not unrolled with the unsigned `n` and
`i` (like shown above), but vectorized and unrolled loop with signed `n` and
`i`. With the changes made in this commit the unsigned version will be
vectorized (though not unrolled for unclear reasons).
How it all works:
Let say we have an AddExpr that looks like (C + x + y + ...), where C
is a constant and x, y, ... are arbitrary SCEVs. Let's compute the
minimum number of trailing zeroes guaranteed of that sum w/o the
constant term: (x + y + ...). If, for example, those terms look like
follows:
i
XXXX...X000
YYYY...YY00
...
ZZZZ...0000
then the rightmost non-guaranteed-zero bit (a potential one at i-th
position above) can change the bits of the sum to the left (and at
i-th position itself), but it can not possibly change the bits to the
right. So we can compute the number of trailing zeroes by taking a
minimum between the numbers of trailing zeroes of the terms.
Now let's say that our original sum with the constant is effectively
just C + X, where X = x + y + .... Let's also say that we've got 2
guaranteed trailing zeros for X:
j
CCCC...CCCC
XXXX...XX00 // this is X = (x + y + ...)
Any bit of C to the left of j may in the end cause the C + X sum to
wrap, but the rightmost 2 bits of C (at positions j and j - 1) do not
affect wrapping in any way. If the upper bits cause a wrap, it will be
a wrap regardless of the values of the 2 least significant bits of C.
If the upper bits do not cause a wrap, it won't be a wrap regardless
of the values of the 2 bits on the right (again).
So let's split C to 2 constants like follows:
0000...00CC = D
CCCC...CC00 = (C - D)
and represent the whole sum as D + (C - D + X). The second term of
this new sum looks like this:
CCCC...CC00
XXXX...XX00
----------- // let's add them up
YYYY...YY00
The sum above (let's call it Y)) may or may not wrap, we don't know,
so we need to keep it under a sext/zext. Adding D to that sum though
will never wrap, signed or unsigned, if performed on the original bit
width or the extended one, because all that that final add does is
setting the 2 least significant bits of Y to the bits of D:
YYYY...YY00 = Y
0000...00CC = D
----------- <nuw><nsw>
YYYY...YYCC
Which means we can safely move that D out of the sext or zext and
claim that the top-level sum neither sign wraps nor unsigned wraps.
Let's run an example, let's say we're working in i8's and the original
expression (zext's or sext's operand) is 21 + 12x + 8y. So it goes
like this:
0001 0101 // 21
XXXX XX00 // 12x
YYYY Y000 // 8y
0001 0101 // 21
ZZZZ ZZ00 // 12x + 8y
0000 0001 // D
0001 0100 // 21 - D = 20
ZZZZ ZZ00 // 12x + 8y
0000 0001 // D
WWWW WW00 // 21 - D + 12x + 8y = 20 + 12x + 8y
therefore zext(21 + 12x + 8y) = (1 + zext(20 + 12x + 8y))<nuw><nsw>
This approach could be improved if we move away from using trailing
zeroes and use KnownBits instead. For instance, with KnownBits we could
have the following picture:
i
10 1110...0011 // this is C
XX X1XX...XX00 // this is X = (x + y + ...)
Notice that some of the bits of X are known ones, also notice that
known bits of X are interspersed with unknown bits and not grouped on
the rigth or left.
We can see at the position i that C(i) and X(i) are both known ones,
therefore the (i + 1)th carry bit is guaranteed to be 1 regardless of
the bits of C to the right of i. For instance, the C(i - 1) bit only
affects the bits of the sum at positions i - 1 and i, and does not
influence if the sum is going to wrap or not. Therefore we could split
the constant C the following way:
i
00 0010...0011 = D
10 1100...0000 = (C - D)
Let's compute the KnownBits of (C - D) + X:
XX1 1 = carry bit, blanks stand for known zeroes
10 1100...0000 = (C - D)
XX X1XX...XX00 = X
--- -----------
XX X0XX...XX00
Will this add wrap or not essentially depends on bits of X. Adding D
to this sum, however, is guaranteed to not to wrap:
0 X
00 0010...0011 = D
sX X0XX...XX00 = (C - D) + X
--- -----------
sX XXXX XX11
As could be seen above, adding D preserves the sign bit of (C - D) +
X, if any, and has a guaranteed 0 carry out, as expected.
The more bits of (C - D) we constrain, the better the transformations
introduced here canonicalize expressions as it leaves less freedom to
what values the constant part of ((C - D) + x + y + ...) can take.
Reviewed By: mzolotukhin, efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48853
llvm-svn: 337943
TTI::getMinMaxReductionCost typically can't handle pointer types - until this is changed its better to limit horizontal reduction to integer/float vector types only.
llvm-svn: 337280
We currently only support binary instructions in the alternate opcode shuffles.
This patch is an initial attempt at adding cast instructions as well, this raises several issues that we probably want to address as we continue to generalize the alternate mechanism:
1 - Duplication of cost determination - we should probably add scalar/vector costs helper functions and get BoUpSLP::getEntryCost to use them instead of determining costs directly.
2 - Support alternate instructions with the same opcode (e.g. casts with different src types) - alternate vectorization of calls with different IntrinsicIDs will require this.
3 - Allow alternates to be a different instruction type - mixing binary/cast/call etc.
4 - Allow passthrough of unsupported alternate instructions - related to PR30787/D28907 'copyable' elements.
Reapplied with fix to only accept 2 different casts if they come from the same source type (PR38154).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49135
llvm-svn: 336989
We currently only support binary instructions in the alternate opcode shuffles.
This patch is an initial attempt at adding cast instructions as well, this raises several issues that we probably want to address as we continue to generalize the alternate mechanism:
1 - Duplication of cost determination - we should probably add scalar/vector costs helper functions and get BoUpSLP::getEntryCost to use them instead of determining costs directly.
2 - Support alternate instructions with the same opcode (e.g. casts with different src types) - alternate vectorization of calls with different IntrinsicIDs will require this.
3 - Allow alternates to be a different instruction type - mixing binary/cast/call etc.
4 - Allow passthrough of unsupported alternate instructions - related to PR30787/D28907 'copyable' elements.
Reapplied with fix to only accept 2 different casts if they come from the same source type.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49135
llvm-svn: 336812
Florian Hahn