similar to: One element vectors versus scalars

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

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

I have added a few PPC-specific DAG combines in the past that follow this pattern on specific operations. Now that it appears that this would be useful to do on yet another operation, I'm wondering what people think about doing this in the target-independent DAG Combiner for any legal/custom operation on the target. TL; DR; The generic pattern would look like this: (build_vector (op

We discovered what is happening. SDAGCombiner essentially looks at various combinations of nodes to do with vectors, and when it can, it creates a vector shuffle. The problem is, that our vector shuffle lowering builds new trees with vector element, or vector sub-vector insert sequences. The generic DAGCombiner, reconstructs these into a new shuffle, and so the loop continues - we reduce it,

Hi Krzysztof, Today I try it on llvm9.0.0 version. &nbsp; def bos : RPPInstMMEMrr<OPC_STORE, &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (outs), (ins MGPR:$rs1, SGPR32:$rbase, MGPR:$roffset, uimm2:$rshift), &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; !strconcat(opcodestr, ""), "$rs1,

def STOREbos { // InstructionEncoding Instruction RPPInst RPPInstMMEMrr &nbsp; field bits<32&gt; Inst = { 0, 0, 0, 1, rs1{2}, rs1{1}, rs1{0}, index{0}, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, rbase{3}, rbase{2}, rbase{1}, rbase{0}, rbase{4}, roffset{4}, roffset{3}, roffset{2}, roffset{1}, roffset{0}, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 }; &nbsp; field bits<32&gt; SoftFail = { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,

Hi LLVM-Devs, I am in the process of updating our out-of-tree implementation from v5.0 to v6.0 RC3, and while it builds and mostly runs, I am having trouble with a small number of tests where the 'WorklistMap' in 'DAGCombiner::Run' never becomes empty. This is resulting in a runaway state of continuous heap allocation until the process exhausts all system memory. But I can't

You are welcome. I changed the pattern, the same old error pop up again, crash in the same place. Type set is empty for each HW mode: possible type contradiction in the pattern below (use -print-records with llvm-tblgen to see all expanded records). vtInt: &nbsp; (vt:{ *:[Other] }) UNREACHABLE executed at /home/nancy/work/rpp_clang/llvm/utils/TableGen/CodeGenDAGPatterns.cpp:824!

Martin: I suspect this is an issue with post-DAG legalization store merging in the DAGCombiner. If you have a custom lowered type the DAGCombiner may end up merging a set of stores and immediately splitting them up in legalization. You should be able to disable this pass universally by overriding mergeStoresAfterLegalization() or conditionally for cases that shouldn't match with

Hi, The full trace stack: Type set is empty for each HW mode: possible type contradiction in the pattern below (use -print-records with llvm-tblgen to see all expanded records). vtInt: (vt:{ *:[Other] }) UNREACHABLE executed at /home/nancy/work/rpp_clang/llvm/utils/TableGen/CodeGenDAGPatterns.cpp:824! [ 85%] Building X86GenEVEX2VEXTables.inc... &nbsp;#0 0x000000000081b9b5

Martin: It sounds like you are doing is more akin to shuffle selection than fusion and therefore it's a better fit for instruction selection than DAGCombining. Try movign it to <Target>ISelDAGToDAG's Select (or potentially PreprocessISelDAG). Th -Nirav On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 4:05 PM Martin J. O'Riordan <MartinO at theheart.ie> wrote: > We discovered what is

Thanks very much Eric for taking the time to carefully explain this to me. So if I am the author of the backend for a new processor technology, or willing to modernise my existing implementation, you would recommend that the ‘-mcpu’ option is deprecated and probably best not used at all, or perhaps just as a synonym for ‘-march + -mtune’? The first part of the target triple guides the

I am needing to return i128 as a shadow return due to abi issues on alpha.  The problem I am running into is the code for doing that with scalars (currently only used for vectors, as far as I can tell) sets the sret on the parameter.  If I just go this path, then I am setting sret on an integer pointer, which verify objects too.  LangRef doesn't say scalars are allowed to have sret set, but

Yes, it looks like passing ‘EnableVec’ and ‘EnableSLPVec’ to ‘Args.hasFlag’ should be replaced with ‘false’ and then it has the expected behaviour. MartinO From: cfe-dev [mailto:cfe-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Martin J. O'Riordan via cfe-dev Sent: 01 March 2018 18:02 To: 'Richard Smith' <richard at metafoo.co.uk> Cc: 'Clang Dev'

Hi Martin, On Fri, 3 Aug 2018 at 14:10, Martin J. O'Riordan <MartinO at theheart.ie> wrote: > $ git branch --list > * master > martino By default "git branch" only lists local branches. "git branch -a" will list all of them, including (for me) "remotes/origin/release_70". If you just type "git checkout release_70" git will

Hi Martin, On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 1:18 PM Martin J. O'Riordan <MartinO at theheart.ie> wrote: > Thanks Eric, > > > > After the original reply to my query I had a good look at the GCC > documentation for these options, and what I discovered is that “there is no > consensus” in GCC. Basically, saying do what GCC does was a non-answer as > it clarified nothing.

Thanks Tim, Sometimes my hacks last longer than I want as it isn't always apparent how I can implement it properly. At the moment I am looking at changes I need to 'MachineBasicBlock::ReplaceUsesOfBlockWith'. It is most likely that I need to handle the issue in a different way, but the change I need works here for my target for the time being, but breaks X86 which I also build for

Thanks Eric, After the original reply to my query I had a good look at the GCC documentation for these options, and what I discovered is that “there is no consensus” in GCC. Basically, saying do what GCC does was a non-answer as it clarified nothing. X86 has deprecated ‘-mcpu’ in favour of ‘-mtune’, and it uses ‘-mtune’ to mean that the scheduling, etc. should be biased in favour of more

On Aug 19, 2010, at 1:38 PM, Andrew Lenharth wrote: > I am needing to return i128 as a shadow return due to abi issues on > alpha. The problem I am running into is the code for doing that with > scalars (currently only used for vectors, as far as I can tell) sets > the sret on the parameter. If I just go this path, then I am setting > sret on an integer pointer, which verify

x86 has also put a lot of effort into shuffle lowering...so much so that it is its own life-form and brings most online codeviewer apps to their knees when you try to open X86ISelLowering.cpp. :) Given that: 1. There are at least 2 targets that lean towards shuffle (Martin's comment + x86 uses lowerVSELECTtoVectorShuffle() for all cases like the example posted here) 2. Size-changing shuffles