[llvm-dev] Possible AVX512 codegen bug in LLVM 10.0.1?

Craig Topper via llvm-dev
Sat, 05 Sep 2020 04:16:55 -0000

I forgot, another option is to compile your main with
-mprefer-vector-width=512 which will add another attribute
"prefer-vector-width" to main that will tell the backend to not split
512
bit vectors either.

~Craig


On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 9:11 PM Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I believe this is an interaction with our method for avoiding zmm
> registers on skylake-avx512 by default. The clang frontend adds a function
> attribute "min-legal-vector-width" to tell about any explicit
vectors used
> in function arguments, returns, inline assembly, or x86intrin.h intrinsics
> used by the C code. The backend uses this to know if any 512 bit vectors it
> sees came from the user code or from the auto vectorizers. If it came from
> user code we need to use zmm, but if it came from the auto vectorizers
> we're allowed to split into smaller vectors.
>
> In your case your main function has the "min-legal-vector-width"
attribute
> set to 0 which means the original C code was all scalar. None of the other
> functions have the attribute. So the backend thinks any vectors it sees in
> main came from the auto vectorizers and are allowed to be split. Lack of
> attribute is treated conservatively. We assume that the vector widths
> weren't checked. So any 512-bit vectors will use zmm in the other
functions.
>
> I notice in the ll file that the call to main has been modified to use a
> vector when it didn't originally. So clang didn't see the vector
when it
> generated the code. I think you can remove the min-legal-vector-width
> attribute to fix your issue.
>
> Hope that helps. Let me know if you have any questions.
>
> ~Craig
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 8:49 PM TB Schardl via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> Hey LLVMDev,
>>
>> Perhaps I'm missing something, but I think I've stumbled across
a codegen
>> bug in LLVM 10.0.1 related to AVX512.  I've attached a small LLVM
IR
>> testcase and generated x86_64 assembly file that shows the bug.
>>
>> The test case is small, but not quite minimal, mostly because of driver
>> code included in the test case so one can compile and run the program.
The
>> program does a simple vectorizable computation two ways — once with a
>> vectorized loop, and then with a recursive function that contains a
>> vectorized loop at its base case — and then compares the results of
those
>> two computations.  If it behaves correctly, both computations should
>> produce the same result, and the program should produce no output.  But
>> right now it seems that the recursive-function version produces roughly
>> half incorrect results, in a repeating pattern of 4 correct results
>> followed by 4 incorrect results.  (There are also some commented-out
lines
>> in the LLVM file, from my own testing of alternative implementations to
>> confirm that the recurisve-function code is otherwise correct.)
>>
>> The crux seems to be that the recursive function, _Z7loopdacllPjl,
takes
>> a vector of 8 64-bit integers as one of its arguments.  There's no
issue
>> with such an argument in LLVM IR, but the generated assembly seems to
be
>> incorrect.  Examining the assembly file, it seems that _Z7loopdacllPjl
>> loads this vector argument off the stack with a 64-byte reload (notably
on
>> line 78).  But before the call to _Z7loopdacllPjl from main (line 595),
>> I only see a single 32-byte spill corresponding to this vector
argument.
>> Hence, it seems that the vectorized loop in _Z7loopdacllPjl gets a
>> vector half-filled with garbage values, leading to the observed
misbehavior.
>>
>> I'm not familiar enough with LLVM's x86_64 backend to
understand why it
>> generates this particular assembly.  But the generated assembly seems
>> incorrect to me.  Am I missing something?
>>
>> Please let me know if there's any other information you need from
me.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> TB
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> https://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/20200904/2458034d/attachment.html>