Hi Nadav, I believe the implementation to keep on widening the vector to
the next power of two must be in TargetLowering.h because that is where we
decide whether to Widen the vector or not, and the size to which we widen
it. In this case, we stop at 4xi8 and do not check if it is legal or not.
But the comment says ‘try to widen vector elements until a legal type is
found’.
Also, there is a minor issue with the comment <3 x float> to <4 x
float>,
where the float vectors won’t even enter this block of code, since we check
the element Vector type (EltVT) to be integer.
The patch breaks a whole lot of test-cases, so it is obviously not the
ideal solution. It simply reflects what the comment says.
diff --git a/include/llvm/Target/TargetLowering.h
b/include/llvm/Target/TargetLowering.h
index c3fa3cc..181f951 100644
--- a/include/llvm/Target/TargetLowering.h
+++ b/include/llvm/Target/TargetLowering.h
@@ -1474,10 +1474,14 @@ public:
// Try to widen vector elements until a legal type is found.
if (EltVT.isInteger()) {
// Vectors with a number of elements that is not a power of two are
always
- // widened, for example <3 x float> -> <4 x float>.
+ // widened, for example <3 x i8> -> <4 x i8>.
if (!VT.isPow2VectorType()) {
NumElts = (unsigned)NextPowerOf2(NumElts);
EVT NVT = EVT::getVectorVT(Context, EltVT, NumElts);
+ while (!isTypeLegal(NVT)) {
+ NumElts = (unsigned)NextPowerOf2(NumElts);
+ NVT = EVT::getVectorVT(Context, EltVT, NumElts);
+ }
return LegalizeKind(TypeWidenVector, NVT);
}
From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On
Behalf Of Nadav Rotem
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 1:59 PM
To: Redmond, Paul
Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List
Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] vector type legalization
This is a bug in the implementation of WidenVecRes_Binary. On line 1546 it
assumes that “Widen” is the last phase of type-legalization and we check if
the result is a legal type. But actually we want to continue and promote
the elements of the vector. In other cases we may want to widen (to the
next power of two) and later split in half because the vector is too big.
On Aug 12, 2013, at 10:46 AM, Redmond, Paul <paul.redmond at intel.com>
wrote:
Hi Nadav,
On 2013-08-12 12:59 PM, "Nadav Rotem" <nrotem at apple.com>
wrote:
Hi Paul,
You can read about it here:
http://blog.llvm.org/2011/12/llvm-31-vector-changes.html
Hi,
I am trying to understand how vector type legalization works. In
particular, I'm looking at i8 vector types on x86 (with sse42 features)
v3i8 gets widened to v4i8 and then operations get unrolled (scalarized)
because v4i8 is not a legal type whereas v4i8 gets
This does not sound right. v3i8 -> v4i8 is okay. But the next step
should be v4i8 -> v4i32. The operation nay be scalarized in the vector
legalization phase.
What I'm looking at is a v3i8 add. In DAGTypeLegalizer::WidenVecRes_Binary
the operation gets scalarized (DAG.UnrollVector). The input N is
"0x51c1d60: v3i8 = add 0x51c1860, 0x51c1c60 [ORD=5] [ID=0]" and the
WidenVT is v4i8. The code ends up in the NumElts == 1 path which causes
scalarization.
The debug dump shows "Widen node result 0: 0x563dd20: v3i8 = add
0x563d820, 0x563dc20 [ORD=5] [ID=0]". To me it doesn't look like
it's
possible to both widen and promote an operation..
Paul
promoted to v4i32. Why doesn't v3i8 (or even v4i8) get widened to
v16i8? Alternatively, v3i8 could be widened to v4i8 then promoted to
v4i32 but this doesn't happen either.
Can anyone provide some insight into why vector type legalization works
the way it does?
Thanks,
paul
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
--
=Sriram Murali
Intel of Canada, Waterloo
(519) 404-0843 <http://synergy.ece.ubc.ca/sriram>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130813/56f0c4e2/attachment.html>