similar to: InstructionSimplify: adding a hook for shufflevector instructions

Thanks, Sanjay, that makes sense. The opportunity for improving instcombining splat sounds promising. Another question about shuffle simplification. This is a testcase from test/Transforms/InstCombine/vec_shuffle.ll: define <4 x i32> @test10(<4 x i32> %tmp5) nounwind { %tmp6 = shufflevector <4 x i32> %tmp5, <4 x i32> undef, <4 x i32> <i32 1, i32 undef, i32

We use InstCombiner::ShouldChangeType() to prevent transforms to illegal integer types, but I'm not sure how that would apply to vector types. Ie, let's say v256 is a legal type in your example. DataLayout doesn't appear to specify what configurations of a 256-bit vector are legal, so I don't think we can currently use that to say v2i128 should be treated differently than v16i16.

Right - I think that case looks like this for little endian: define <2 x i32> @zextshuffle(<2 x i16> %x) { %zext_shuffle = shufflevector <2 x i16> %x, <2 x i16> zeroinitializer, <4 x i32> <i32 0, i32 2, i32 1, i32 2> %bc = bitcast <4 x i16> %zext_shuffle to <2 x i32> ret <2 x i32> %bc } define <2 x i32> @zextvec(<2 x i16>

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Rackover, Zvi <zvi.rackover at intel.com> wrote: > Hi Sanjay, > > > > I agree we should also discuss **if** this canonicalization is beneficial. > > For starters, do we have a concrete case where we would benefit from > canonicalizing shuffles <-> truncates in LLVM IR? > > IMO, we should not count benefits for codegen

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Friedman, Eli <efriedma at codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 1/12/2017 9:04 AM, Sanjay Patel via llvm-dev wrote: > > It's time for another round of "What is the canonical IR?" > > Credit for this episode to Zvi and PR31551. :) > https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=31551 > > define <4 x i16> @shuffle(<16 x i16>

On 1/12/2017 9:04 AM, Sanjay Patel via llvm-dev wrote: > It's time for another round of "What is the canonical IR?" > > Credit for this episode to Zvi and PR31551. :) > https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=31551 > define <4 x i16> @shuffle(<16 x i16> %x) { > %shuf = shufflevector <16 x i16> %x, <16 x i16> undef, <4 x i32> <i32 0,

It's time for another round of "What is the canonical IR?" Credit for this episode to Zvi and PR31551. :) https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=31551 define <4 x i16> @shuffle(<16 x i16> %x) { %shuf = shufflevector <16 x i16> %x, <16 x i16> undef, <4 x i32> <i32 0, i32 4, i32 8, i32 12> ret <4 x i16> %shuf } define <4 x i16>

A vector select with a constant vector condition operand: define <4 x i32> @foo(<4 x i32> %a, <4 x i32> %b) { %sel = select <4 x i1> <i1 true, i1 false, i1 false, i1 true>, <4 x i32> %a, <4 x i32> %b ret <4 x i32> %sel } ...is equivalent to a shufflevector: define <4 x i32> @goo(<4 x i32> %a, <4 x i32> %b) { %shuf =

I have a slight preference towards shufflevector, because it makes sequences of shuffles, where only some of the shuffles can be converted into selects (because the input and output vector sizes of the others don't match) simpler to reason about. I'm not sure this is a particularly good reason, though. On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 8:19 AM, Philip Reames via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at

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

Hi Ahmed, >From what can be seen in the code snippet you provided, the reuse of XMM0 and XMM1 across loop-unroll instances does not inhibit instruction-level parallelism. Modern X86 processors use register renaming that can eliminate the dependencies in the instruction stream. In the example you provided, the processor should be able to identify the 2-vloads + vadd + vstore sequences as

Hi, Zvi, I agree. In the context of targeting the KNL, however, I'm a bit concerned about the addressing, and specifically, the size of the resulting encoding: > vmovdqu32 zmm0, zmmword ptr [rax + c+401280] ;load b[401280] in > zmm0 > > vpaddd zmm1, zmm1, zmmword ptr [rax + b+401344] > ; zmm1<-zmm1+b[401344] The KNL can only

> I would like a command line option to disable this optimization. That way tests can still verify that EVEX instructions came out of isel by using -show-mc-encoding. I think that keeping tests compatibility is not a reason for an additional “llc” flag. We check encoding in test/MC/X86 dir. Is there any option to report-out from llc in non-debug mode? It should be an option to control

Sanjay, I'm looking at some missed optimizations caused by D70246. Here's a test case: define <4 x float> @f(i32 %t32, <4 x float>* %t24) { .entry: %t43 = insertelement <3 x i32> undef, i32 %t32, i32 2 %t44 = bitcast <3 x i32> %t43 to <3 x float> %t45 = shufflevector <3 x float> %t44, <3 x float> undef, <4 x i32> <i32 0, i32 undef,

Hal, that’s a good point. There are more manually-maintained tables in the X86 backend that should probably be tablegened: the memory-folding tables and ReplaceableInstrs, to name a couple. If you have ideas on how to get these auto-generated, please let us know. From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Hal Finkel via llvm-dev Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2016

On 9 Nov 2016 06:04, "Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev" < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Just my two cents, but if Craig is up for it, I think this would be a pretty great fit. +1 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20161108/9a73b9e1/attachment.html>

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 Nadav, Thanks for the quick reply !! Ok, so as of now we are lacking capability to handle flat large reductions. I did go through function vectorizeChainsInBlock() (line number 2862). In this function, we try to vectorize if we have phi nodes in the IR (several if's check for phi nodes) i.e we try to construct tree that starts at chains. Any pointers on how to join multiple trees? I

Hello Elena, > There is no 32-bit KNC. Are you sure about this? From "System V Application Binary Interface K1OM Architecture Processor Supplement Version 1.0", p. 124: | A.1 Execution of 32-bit Programs | | The K1OM processors are able to execute 64-bit K1OM and also 32-bit ia32 programs. I'm really really looking for this opportunity, because we want to extend our kernel

Ok, makes sense. My suggestion is that we patch the IR Verifier to ensure that the mask is indeed a vector of constants and/or undefs. Right now it only runs the standard checks for instructions. We will also run Alive2 on the test suite to make sure undef is never replaced in practice. Thanks, Nuno -----Original Message----- From: Eli Friedman <efriedma at quicinc.com> Sent: 27 de