llvm dev - Aug 2017 - Status of llvm.experimental.vector.reduce.* intrinsics

Hi,

I was wandering about the status of the 
llvm.experimental.vector.reduce.* intrinsics. Are all back-ends 
supporting those intrinsics or are they still in a very "experimental"
state?

Thanks,
Michael

​Hi Michael,

​The intrinsics are still technically in an experimental state as we need
to have a further discussion to build consensus before marking them as
fully supported.

The AArch64 backend has been using them for all *natively supported* vector
reductions for a few months now, with no issues as far as I'm aware. There
are some rough edges which need some further work. For example, we're
currently relying on a TTI hook to determine whether or not we create an
intrinsic call or degenerate into a shuffevector sequence based on the
reduction type. This was intended as a transitional stage. To mark the
intrinsics as being first class operations we probably need to add support
in codegen to expand the VECREDUCE_* nodes into the shufflevector reduction
pattern, so that targets can generate the intrinsics in all cases without
having to rely on TTI.

Amara


On 3 August 2017 at 12:03, Haidl, Michael via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was wandering about the status of the
> llvm.experimental.vector.reduce.* intrinsics. Are all back-ends
> supporting those intrinsics or are they still in a very
"experimental"
> state?
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170803/205fac00/attachment.html>

Hi Amara,

thank you for the clarification. I tested the intrinsics x86_64 and it
seemed to work pretty well. Looking forward to try this intrinsics with
the AArch64 backend. Maybe I find the time to look into codegen to get
this intrinsics out of experimental stage. They seem pretty useful.

Cheers,
Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: Amara Emerson [amara.emerson at gmail.com]
Received: Donnerstag, 03 Aug. 2017, 14:50
To: michael.haidl at uni-muenster.de [michael.haidl at uni-muenster.de]
CC: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org [llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org]
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Status of llvm.experimental.vector.reduce.* intrinsics

​Hi Michael,

​The intrinsics are still technically in an experimental state as we need to
have a further discussion to build consensus before marking them as fully
supported.

The AArch64 backend has been using them for all *natively supported* vector
reductions for a few months now, with no issues as far as I'm aware. There
are some rough edges which need some further work. For example, we're
currently relying on a TTI hook to determine whether or not we create an
intrinsic call or degenerate into a shuffevector sequence based on the reduction
type. This was intended as a transitional stage. To mark the intrinsics as being
first class operations we probably need to add support in codegen to expand the
VECREDUCE_* nodes into the shufflevector reduction pattern, so that targets can
generate the intrinsics in all cases without having to rely on TTI.

Amara


On 3 August 2017 at 12:03, Haidl, Michael via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
Hi,

I was wandering about the status of the
llvm.experimental.vector.reduce.* intrinsics. Are all back-ends
supporting those intrinsics or are they still in a very "experimental"
state?

Thanks,
Michael
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170803/d6fb1d1b/attachment.html>