similar to: [LLVMdev] Can LLVM vectorize <2 x i32> type

For example, I have the following IR code, for.cond.preheader: ; preds = %if.end18 %mul = mul i32 %12, %3 %cmp21128 = icmp sgt i32 %mul, 0 br i1 %cmp21128, label %for.body.preheader, label %return for.body.preheader: ; preds = %for.cond.preheader %19 = mul i32 %12, %3 %20 = add i32 %19, -1 %21 = zext i32 %20 to i64 %22 =

Thank You, It means vmovdqa64 zmm22, zmmword ptr [rip + .LCPI0_0] # zmm22 = [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15] zmm22 will contain 64 bit constant values which are indexes here zmm22=8, 9, 10, 11, 12,13,14,15. not the values loaded from these locations. and zmm2 contains constant 4000. so, vpmuludq zmm14, zmm10, zmm2 ; will multiply the indexes values with 4000, as for array b the stride is 4000. zmm14=

On 07/24/2015 03:42 AM, Benjamin Kramer wrote: >> On 24.07.2015, at 08:06, zhi chen <zchenhn at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> It seems that that it's hard to vectorize int64 in LLVM. For example, LLVM 3.4 generates very complicated code for the following IR. I am running on a Haswell processor. Is it because there is no alternative AVX/2 instructions for int64? The same thing

------------------------------------ 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>

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,

I'm not compiling it to x86. Should loop optimizer something independent of the target? If so, should the vectorized code on IR level? On Aug 12, 2016 11:39 AM, "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > cat > test.c > > #define SIZE 128 > > void bar(int *restrict A, int* restrict B,int K) { > > #pragma clang loop vectorize(enable)

Hmm, I'm not able to get those .ll files to compile if I disable SSE and I end up with SSE instructions(including sqrtpd) if I don't disable it. On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 10:53 PM, Peter Newman <peter at uformia.com> wrote: > Is there something specifically required to enable SSE? If it's not > detected as available (based from the target triple?) then I don't think

Interleaved access is not enabled on X86 yet. We looked at this feature and got into conclusion that interleaving (as loads + shuffles) is not always profitable on X86. We should provide the right cost which depends on number of shuffles. Number of shuffles depends on permutations (shuffle mask). And even if we estimate the number of shuffles, the shuffles are not generated in-place. Vectorizer

Hi Daniel, I increased the size of your test to be 128 but -stats still shows no loop optimized... Xiaochu On Aug 12, 2016 11:11 AM, "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > It's not possible to know that A and B don't alias in this example. It's > almost certainly not profitable to add a runtime check given the size of > the loop. > > >

Hi Michael, Sometime back I did some experiments with interleave vectorizer and did not found any degrade, probably my tests/benchmarks are not extensive enough to cover much. Elina is the right person to comment on it as she already experienced cases where it hinders performance. For interleave vectorizer on X86 we do not have any specific costing, it goes to BasicTTI where the costing is not

On 26 May 2016 at 19:12, Sanjay Patel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Is there a compile-time and/or potential runtime cost that makes > enableInterleavedAccessVectorization() default to 'false'? > > I notice that this is set to true for ARM, AArch64, and PPC. > > In particular, I'm wondering if there's a reason it's not enabled for

Greetings all, As you may have noticed, there is a new vector shuffle lowering path in the X86 backend. You can try it out with the '-x86-experimental-vector-shuffle-lowering' flag to llc, or '-mllvm -x86-experimental-vector-shuffle-lowering' to clang. Please test it out! There may be some correctness bugs, I'm still fuzz testing it to shake them out. But I expect fairly few

On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Robert Lougher <rob.lougher at gmail.com> wrote: > Unfortunately, another team, while doing internal testing has seen the > new path generating illegal insertps masks. A sample here: > > vinsertps $256, %xmm0, %xmm13, %xmm4 # xmm4 = xmm0[0],xmm13[1,2,3] > vinsertps $256, %xmm1, %xmm0, %xmm6 # xmm6 = xmm1[0],xmm0[1,2,3] >

Regarding InterleavedAccessPass - sure, but proper strided/interleaved access optimization ought to have a positive impact even without target support. Case in point - Hal enabled it on PPC last September. An important difference vs. x86 seems to be that arbitrary shuffles are cheap on PPC, but, as I said below, I hope we can enable it on x86 with a conservative cost function, and still get

I should mention a couple of useful self-explanatory LLVM flags for triage: -enable-misched=false -verify-misched -Andy On Oct 15, 2013, at 4:43 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > Grats on the work, a long time coming! > > Beware the incoming register allocation bugs ;) > > -eric > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Andrew Trick <atrick at

On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Ahmed Bougacha <ahmed.bougacha at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Chandler, > > I've been looking at the regressions Quentin mentioned, and filed a PR > for the most egregious one: http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=22377 > > As for the others, I'm working on reducing them, but for now, here are > some raw observations, in case any of

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]

On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> wrote: > > On Jul 5, 2012, at 9:06 PM, Anthony Blake <amb33 at cs.waikato.ac.nz> wrote: > >> I've noticed that LLVM tends to generate suboptimal code and spill an >> excessive amount of registers in large functions, such as in those >> that are automatically generated by FFTW. >

I filed a couple more, in case they're actually different issues: - http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=22412 - http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=22413 And that's pretty much it for internal changes. I'm fine with flipping the switch; Quentin, are you? Also, just to have an idea, do you (or someone else!) plan to tackle these in the near future? -Ahmed On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at

- we used the C4/C5 (first prefix) byte instead of the apparent ModR/M one as the second prefix byte - early decoding normalized vex.reg, thus corrupting it for the main consumer (copy_REX_VEX()), resulting in #UD on the two-operand instructions we emulate Also add respective test cases to the testing utility plus - fix get_fpu() (the fall-through order was inverted) - add cpu_has_avx2,