similar to: LoopVectorize module - some possible enhancements

All, I'm trying to refactor LoopVectorize such that it has better conformance to VPlan vision going forward (http://www.llvm.org/docs/Proposals/VectorizationPlan.html). All VP*Recipe class definitions are now moved to VPlan.h, and I have a patch under review to move LoopVectorizationPlanner class out of LoopVectorize.cpp (https://reviews.llvm.org/D41420). Next thing I'm working on is

Amara, >I support this direction Thanks for the support. >but are there actually any real world workloads where gather/scatter scalarisation would be worth it, on any micro-architecture? If we don’t have examples and the compile time cost is non-negligible then I think we’d still like to keep the early >bailouts in some form.’ It's not like I have specific application code in

> On 5 Jan 2018, at 21:01, Saito, Hideki via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > All, > > I'm trying to refactor LoopVectorize such that it has better conformance to VPlan vision going forward > (http://www.llvm.org/docs/Proposals/VectorizationPlan.html). All VP*Recipe class definitions are now > moved to VPlan.h, and I have a patch under review

On 01/05/2018 06:28 PM, Saito, Hideki wrote: > Amara, > >> I support this direction > Thanks for the support. > >> but are there actually any real world workloads where gather/scatter scalarisation would be worth it, on any micro-architecture? If we don’t have examples and the compile time cost is non-negligible then I think we’d still like to keep the early >bailouts in

Thanks, Hal. I plan to post a patch w/o HW Legality early bailout first. That should enable further discussion on where the initial very high cost for "illegal masked load/store/gather/scatter" should be coming from --- like should LoopVectorize provide it? Or should it be provided by TTI? I prefer the latter (TTI) but the first revision of the patch will intentionally do the former

Hello. Mikhail, with the more recent version of the LoopVectorize.cpp code (retrieved at the beginning of July 2016) I ran the following piece of C code: void foo(long *A, long *B, long *C, long N) { for (long i = 0; i < N; ++i) { C[i] = A[i] + B[i]; } } The vectorized LLVM program I obtain contains 2 vector.body blocks - one named

Something like: index 6db7f68..68564cb 100644 --- a/lib/Transforms/Vectorize/LoopVectorize.cpp +++ b/lib/Transforms/Vectorize/LoopVectorize.cpp @@ -1208,6 +1208,8 @@ void InnerLoopVectorizer::vectorizeMemoryInstruction(Instr Type *DataTy = VectorType::get(ScalarDataTy, VF); Value *Ptr = LI ? LI->getPointerOperand() : SI->getPointerOperand(); unsigned Alignment = LI ?

Hello. Could you please tell me why the first loop of the following program (also maybe the commented loop) doesn't get vectorized with LoopVectorize (from a recent LLVM build from the SVN repository from Jun 2018)? typedef short TYPE; TYPE data[1400][1200]; void kernel_covariance(int m, int n, TYPE mean[1200]) { int i, j, k; for (j = 0; j < m; j++) { mean[j] =

Hello. I am trying to create my own LoopVectorize.cpp pass as a separate pass from the LLVM trunk, as described in http://llvm.org/docs/CMake.html#embedding-llvm-in-your-project. Did anybody try something like this? I added close to the end of the .cpp file: /* this line seems to be required - it allows to run this pass as an embedded pass by giving opt -my-loop-vectorize

Hi Alex, I think the changes you want are actually not vectorizer related. Vectorizer just uses data provided by other passes. What you probably might want is to look into routine Loop::getStartLoc() (see lib/Analysis/LoopInfo.cpp). If you find a way to improve it, patches are welcome:) Thanks, Michael > On Jun 3, 2016, at 6:13 PM, Alex Susu <alex.e.susu at gmail.com> wrote: >

Hi, > On Apr 22, 2016, at 8:27 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > The problem here is that the d[i] array is only conditionally accessed, and so we can't if-convert the loop body. The compiler does not know that d[i] is actually dereferenceable for all i from 0 to 15 (the array might be shorter and p[i] is 0 for i past the end

Hello. I'm not able to vectorize this simple C loop doing basically what could be called predicated sum-reduction: #define NMAX 1000 int colOccupied[NMAX]; void Func(int N) { int numSol = 0; for (int c = 0; c < N; c++) { if (colOccupied[c] == 0) numSol++; } return numSol; } The compiler

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Arnold Schwaighofer" <aschwaighofer at apple.com> > To: "Joshua Klontz" <josh.klontz at gmail.com> > Cc: "LLVM Dev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 4:05:53 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Limit loop vectorizer to SSE > > > Something like: > > index

On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 23:20, Philip Reames via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I don't care about the convention, but I'm really not sure it's worth the churn which would result in the code base. The hurtle which needs cleared here is not "is it a better naming style", but "is the disruption implied by changing to the new convention

Yes, I was just about to send out: DL->getABITypeAlignment(ScalarDataTy); The question is: “… ABI alignment for the target …" is that getPrefTypeAlignment or getABITypeAlignment I would have thought the latter. On Nov 15, 2013, at 4:12 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Arnold Schwaighofer"

>it cannot afford large size masks for large vectors So, even a standard way of vectorizing remainder in masked or unmasked fashion wouldn’t work, I suppose. Ouch. I suppose VPlan should be able to model this kind of gigantic remainder vector code (when the time comes). Not pretty at all, though. Now, be fully aware that Direction #2 is really a poor (or rather extremely poor) person’s

Hi Alex, I'm not aware of efforts on loop coalescing in LLVM, but probably polly can do something like this. Also, one related thought: it might be worth making it a separate pass, not a part of loop vectorizer. LLVM already has several 'utility' passes (e.g. loop rotation), which primarily aims at enabling other passes. Thanks, Michael > On Feb 15, 2016, at 6:44 AM, RCU

Hi Alex, This has been very recently fixed by Hal. See http://reviews.llvm.org/rL270771 Adam > On Jun 4, 2016, at 3:13 AM, Alex Susu via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hello. > Mikhail, I come back to this older thread. > I need to do a few changes to LoopVectorize.cpp. > > One of them is related to figuring out the exact C source line

What LoopVectorize.cpp has are the following. Each function may have to have a separate consolidation discussion. I'm bringing up getpointerOperand() since I actually found multiple instances defined/used. DependenceAnalysis.cpp has isLoadOrStore(). LoopAccessAnalysis.cpp has getAddressSpaceOperand(). I'm sure there are others that might be worth discussing within this thread or a follow

Hello, I'm playing around with vectorization in LLVM 6.0.0, and I noticed that when creating a vector load out of a scalar load, the alignment for the vector load is defined to be the one of the scalar load. For instance, 16-bit vectors get aligned on 2 bytes. This does not correspond to the preferred alignment for vectors that I specified in the data layout (which is bigger). Inspecting