similar to: [LLVMdev] new vector resize instruction could be useful

On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Jochen Wilhelmy <j.wilhelmy at arcor.de> wrote: > Hi! > > If I build a vector of some length (e.g. 4) from a vector of another > length (e.g. 3) > then I get tons of extractelement and insertelement instructions. since > vectors of length 3 and 4 both map to an sse register it could be useful to > introduce an instruction that changes the

Hi! Is there a pass that optimizes vector operations? If I have for examle a sequence of shufflevector instructions that optimizes them? (in opencl notation e.g. a.xyzw.wzyx.xxxx -> a.wwww) -Jochen

The instcombine pass cleans up a lot. Any idea why there are still shufflevector, insertelement, *and* bitcast (!!) etc. instructions left? The original loop is so clean, a textbook example I'd say. There is no need to shuffle anything.At least I don't see it. Frank vector.ph: ; preds = %L5 %broadcast.splatinsert1 = insertelement <4 x

Hi, I don't know if my llvm ir code is faulty, or if I spot a bug in the RegisterCoalescing Pass, so I'm posting my issue on the ML. Shader and print-before-all dump are given below. The interessing part is the vreg6/vreg48 reduction : before RegCoalescing, the machine code is : // BEFORE LOOP ... Some COPYs.... 400B%vreg47<def> = COPY %vreg2<kill>; R600_Reg32:%vreg47,%vreg2

The loop vectorizer relies on cleanup passes to be run after it: from Transforms/IPO/PassManagerBuilder.cpp: // Add the various vectorization passes and relevant cleanup passes for // them since we are no longer in the middle of the main scalar pipeline. MPM.add(createLoopVectorizePass(DisableUnrollLoops)); MPM.add(createInstructionCombiningPass());

The following IR implements the following nested loop: for (int i = start ; i < end ; ++i ) for (int p = 0 ; p < 4 ; ++p ) a[i*4+p] = b[i*4+p] + c[i*4+p]; define void @main(i64 %arg0, i64 %arg1, i1 %arg2, i64 %arg3, float* noalias %arg4, float* noalias %arg5, float* noalias %arg6) { entrypoint: br i1 %arg2, label %L0, label %L1 L0:

Hi, The current definition of shuffle vector is <result> = shufflevector <n x <ty>> <v1>, <n x <ty>> <v2>, <n x i32> <mask> ; yields <n x <ty>> The first two operands of a 'shufflevector' instruction are vectors with types that match each other and types that match the result of the instruction. The third

This snippet of IR is interesting: %sub.ptr.div.iS37_D = sdiv <2 x i64> %sub.ptr.sub.iS36_D, <i64 24, i64 24> %cmp10S38_D = icmp ugt <2 x i64> %sub.ptr.div.iS37_D, %splatInsMapS1_D.splat %zextS39_D = sext <2 x i1> %cmp10S38_D to <2 x i64> %BCS39_D = bitcast <2 x i64> %zextS39_D to i128 %mskS39_D = icmp ne i128 %BCS39_D, 0 br i1 %mskS39_D,

On 4 February 2013 18:25, Arnold Schwaighofer <aschwaighofer at apple.com>wrote: > For cases where this approach breaks really badly we could consider adding > a specialized api or parameters (like the type of a user/use). But we > should do so only as a last resort and backed by actual code that would > benefit from doing so. > Very sensible, more or less what I had in

Hi Mon Ping, Generalizing shufflevector would be great. I have an additional suggestion below. On 29-Sep-08, at 11:11 PM, Mon Ping Wang wrote: > I am proposing to extend the shuffle vector definition to be > <result> = shufflevector <n x <ty>> <v1>, <n x <ty>> <v2>, <m x i32> > <mask> ; yields <m x <ty>> > > The

Instcombine does of this, late codegen also does some of it. -Chris On May 14, 2010, at 5:58 AM, Jochen Wilhelmy <j.wilhelmy at arcor.de> wrote: > Hi! > > Is there a pass that optimizes vector operations? > If I have for examle a sequence of shufflevector instructions > that optimizes them? > (in opencl notation e.g. a.xyzw.wzyx.xxxx -> a.wwww) > > -Jochen

------------------------------------ IR ------------------------------------------------------------------ if.then.i.i.i.i.i.i: ; preds = %if.then4 %S25_D = zext <2 x i32> %splatLDS17_D.splat to <2 x i64> %umul_with_overflow.i.iS26_D = shl <2 x i64> %S25_D, <i64 3, i64 3> %extumul_with_overflow.i.iS26_D = extractelement <2 x i64>

Hey, as some of you may know we're in process of experimenting with LLVM in Gallium3D (Mesa's new driver model), where LLVM would be used both in the software only (by just JIT executing shaders) and hardware (drivers will implement LLVM code-generators) cases. While the software only case is pretty straight forward I just realized I missed something in my initial evaluation. That

I agree further generalization seems like a very good idea. But I'd like to see what Mon Ping proposed implemented first so we have a better idea of the implementation cost. Thanks, Evan On Sep 30, 2008, at 6:44 AM, Stefanus Du Toit wrote: > Hi Mon Ping, > > Generalizing shufflevector would be great. I have an additional > suggestion below. > > On 29-Sep-08, at 11:11

Thanks so much for your feedback Simon. I am not sure that what I am proposing here is at odds with what you're referring to (here and in the PR you linked). The key difference AFAICT is that the pattern I am referring to is probably more aptly described as "reducing scalarization" than as "vectorization". The reason I say that is that the inputs are vectors and the output

Hi, I am trying to understand LLVM vectorization implementation and was looking into both loop and SLP vectorization. test case 1: *int foo(int *a) {int sum = 0,i;for(i=0; i<16; i++) sum += a[i];return sum;}* This code is vectorized by loop vectorizer where we calculate scalar loop cost as 4 and vector loop cost as 2. Since vector loop cost is less and above reduction is legal to

Hi, Using llvm-stress, I got a crash after Post-RA pseudo expansion, with machine verifier. A 128 bit register %vreg233:subreg_l32<def,read-undef> = LLCRMux %vreg119; GR128Bit:%vreg233 GRX32Bit:%vreg119 gets spilled: %vreg265:subreg_l32<def,read-undef> = LLCRMux %vreg119; GR128Bit:%vreg265 GRX32Bit:%vreg119 ST128 %vreg265, <fi#10>, 0, %noreg;

Absolutely. We do it for scalars, so it would likely be a matter of just extending it. But that is one example. The issue of extracting elements, performing an operation on each element individually and then rebuilding the vector is likely more prevalent than that. At least I think that is the case, but I'll do some analysis to see if it is so or not. On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 6:15 PM Craig

Ok, here is the patch again... I also included fixes for the bits that originally gave my mailer fits... Two votes for orange, so I went with orange... Doing diffs in .: --- ./lib/AsmParser/LLLexer.cpp.~1~ 2007-12-14 22:09:06.000000000 -0800 +++ ./lib/AsmParser/LLLexer.cpp 2007-12-15 13:02:47.000000000 -0800 @@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ static uint64_t HexIntToVal(const char * Result +=

Hi Chandler, While doing the performance measurement on a Ivy Bridge, I ran into compile time errors. I saw a bunch of “cannot select" in the LLVM test suite with -march=core-avx-i. E.g., SingleSource/UnitTests/Vector/SSE/sse.isamax.c is failing at O3 -march=core-avx-i with: fatal error: error in backend: Cannot select: 0x7f91b99a6420: v4i32 = bitcast 0x7f91b99b0e10 [ORD=3] [ID=27]