similar to: [LLVMdev] Vector splitting vs widening

Hi Hal, On 05/03/13 18:50, Hal Finkel wrote: > Hello, > > Working on my (currently out-of-tree) BG/Q PPC enhancements, I've run into the following problem with vector type legalization. Here's a quick example: > > Scalarize node result 0: 0x2348420: v1f32 = extract_subvector 0x23434a0, 0x2348320 [ID=0] > > Scalarize node result 0: 0x2348220: v1f32 = extract_subvector

Hi Hal, > The problem is essentially the following: there are no vector f32 types (yet), so the <v4i1> = setcc <v4f32> node needs to be split and scalarized. The operand splitting seems to start correctly, but because <v4i1> is itself a legal type, after splitting the node into <v2i1> = setcc <v2f32>, the process becomes confused. The operands are again split

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nadav Rotem" <nrotem at apple.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Dev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 3:40:50 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Vector splitting vs widening > > Hi Hal, > > > > > > > The

Hello, I'm working on support for the SIMD instruction set on our new BG/Q supercomputer. This instruction set is v4f64 (with the exception of some int <-> fp conversions, floating-point only). The vectorized comparisons, logical operations and selects also exclusively use floating-point inputs. For those inputs that are logically vectors of booleans the system uses the following

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 05:45:57 +0000 "Rotem, Nadav" <nadav.rotem at intel.com> wrote: > Hi Hal, > > Why do say that the type v4i64 is broken ? You can specify that this > type has no legal operations and the codegen will lower ("legalize") > them to something that works on your platform. For example, the AND operation is really only an AND operation

Hi All, I have a question about splitting 'EXTRACT_VECTOR_ELT' with 'v2i1'. I have a llvm IR code snippet as following: llvm IR code snippet: for.body: ; preds = %entry, %for.cond %i.022 = phi i32 [ 0, %entry ], [ %inc, %for.cond ] %0 = icmp ne <2 x i32> %vecinit1, <i32 0, i32 -23> %1 = extractelement <2 x i1>

Hi All, I have a problem with VectorLegalizer::ExpandStore() with v4i1. Let's see a example. * LLVM IR store <4 x i1> %edgeMask_for.body1314, <4 x i1>* %27 * SelectionDAG before vector legalization ch = store<ST1[%16](align=4), trunc to v4i1> t0, t128, t32, undef:i64 * SelectionDAG after vector legalization ch = store<ST1[%16](align=4), trunc to i1> t0, t133, t32,

You could set the AND operation action to custom. The problem is that you would have no way of knowing if the type 'v4i64' originated from v4i1 or v4i64. And I don't think that you can use SimplifyDemandedBits (to discover if only the high bit is set) during the legalizer because the DAG is in a strange state, but I could be mistaken on this one. Okay, here is another idea.

Hi Hal, Why do say that the type v4i64 is broken ? You can specify that this type has no legal operations and the codegen will lower ("legalize") them to something that works on your platform. Nadav -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Hal Finkel Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 06:28 To: LLVM Developers

> extends the elements to 8bit and stores them on stack. Store is responsible for zero-extend. This is the policy... - Elena -----Original Message----- From: jingu at codeplay.com [mailto:jingu at codeplay.com] Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 17:45 To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org; Demikhovsky, Elena <elena.demikhovsky at intel.com>; daniel_l_sanders at apple.com Subject: Re: Question

Hi All, Can someone comment below question whether it is wrong or not please? 2016-06-25 7:52 GMT+01:00 jingu kang <jaykang10 at gmail.com>: > Hi All, > > I have a problem with VectorLegalizer::ExpandStore() with v4i1. > > Let's see a example. > > * LLVM IR > store <4 x i1> %edgeMask_for.body1314, <4 x i1>* %27 > > * SelectionDAG before vector

Please open a bugzilla ticket and attach your testcase. It will allow us to debug and fix the problem. Thanks - Elena From: JinGu [mailto:jingu at codeplay.com] Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2017 00:38 To: Demikhovsky, Elena <elena.demikhovsky at intel.com>; daniel_l_sanders at apple.com <daniel_l_sanders at apple.com>; Jon Chesterfield <jonathanchesterfield at

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 2:45 AM, jingu kang via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi All, > > Can someone comment below question whether it is wrong or not please? > > 2016-06-25 7:52 GMT+01:00 jingu kang <jaykang10 at gmail.com>: >> Hi All, >> >> I have a problem with VectorLegalizer::ExpandStore() with v4i1. >> >> Let's

Hi Krzysztof, Sure, please see below. DAG.dump.() before and after, annotated with what I believe the DAG means. I've spent some time debugging the method but it's proving difficult to determine where the logic is misfiring. Disabling the entire combine causes a lot of failing x86-64 tests - I may have to learn an upstream vector ISA to make progress on this. Thank you >From your

Is there an established way of disabling a DAG combine on a per target basis, where it appears to be detrimental to the generated code? Writing if (!mytarget) in DAGCombiner.cpp works but tends to be erased by git merge and generally doesn't look ideal. Writing the inverse transform in target specific code doesn't work in this instance and in general creates an infinite loop. Guidance

I ran into some odd code being generated today and I came across something that doesn't look quite right. In SelectionDAGBuilder::visitShuffleVector there's some code to see if we can convert the shuffle to an EXTRACT_SUBVECTOR. After computing min/max values of the mask for each operand, there's a look that looks at the ranges and determines whether an EXTRACT_SUBVECTOR can be used:

> so I think we need to use non-extending load for element size less than 8bit on "DAGTypeLegalizer::SplitVecOp_EXTRACT_VECTOR_ELT" like this roughly. > if (N->getOperand(0).getValueType().getVectorElementType().getSizeInBits() < 8) { > return DAG.getLoad(N->getValueType(0), dl, Store, StackPtr, MachinePointerInfo()); > } else { > return

Hi, I am a little unsure about the semantics of the ShuffleKind SK_ExtractSubvector. It seems a subvector is to be extracted, starting from a given index of a given subtype. First of all, if index 0 is passed, I suppose this would mean a noop? But what about calls like the one made of LoopVectorizer for Instruction::PHI in getInstructionCost(): return

After I implemented a new type of legalization (the packing of i1 vectors), I found that x86 does not have a way to load packed masks into SSE registers. So, I guess that legalizing of <4 x i1> to <4 x i32> is the way to go. Cheers, Nadav -----Original Message----- From: Rotem, Nadav Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 11:04 To: 'David A. Greene' Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu

Hello, Here's a quick update on where I'm at with the pre-legalize vector changes I'm working on. I hope to have an updated patch ready to a few days, assuming I don't get too busy with other projects going on. Here are some of the issues I've come across so far. Putting the table for extended ValueTypes in SelectionDAG seems quite involved. There are a lot of places that use