search for: widenvecres_binary

...ugust, 2013 1:59 PM To: Paul Redmond <paul.redmond at intel.com<mailto:paul.redmond at intel.com>> Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu<mailto:llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>> 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 vect...

On Aug 12, 2013, at 1:47 PM, Redmond, Paul <paul.redmond at intel.com> wrote: > Thanks for the tip. I modified WidenVecRes_Binary match WidenVecRes_{Unary/Ternary} and it does the promotion and generates much better code. Why is WidenVecRes_Binary so much more complicated than the Unary/Binary functions? None of the operations in the cases for WidenVecRes_Binary seem any more special then the operations that use WidenVecRes_U...

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 vect...

...>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 = ad...

...or, 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 vect...

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

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 promoted to v4i32. Why doesn't v3i8 (or even v4i8) get widened to v16i8? Alternatively, v3i8 could be widened to v4i8 then