similar to: canonical form loops

Interesting, thanks for digging this up! > As a consequence, any loop structure that is recognized > by SCEV will (/should) not profit from rewriting. As discussed in https://reviews.llvm.org/D68577#1742745 and PR40816 showed, there is still merit and profit in further simplifying loop induction variables, or at-least the primary one; somewhat independent of continuing to rely on SCEV for

Hi Simon, Thanks for reposting the example, and looking at it more carefully, I think it is very similar to my first proposal. This was met with some resistance here because it dumps loop information in the vector preheader. Doing it this early, we want to emit this in the vectoriser, puts a restriction on (future) optimisations that transform vector loops to honour/update/support this intrinsic

Hi Eli, > The problem with your proposal, as written, is that the vectorizer is producing the intrinsic. Because we don’t impose any ordering on optimizations before codegen, every optimization pass in LLVM would have to be taught to preserve any @llvm.set.loop.elements.i32 whenever it makes any change. This is completely impractical because the intrinsic isn’t related to anything

Invitation accepted, I am happy to help out with reviews, like I did with the previous VP patches. And of course agreed that things should be well defined, and that we shouldn't paint ourselves in a corner, but I don't think that this is the case. And it's not that I am in a rush, but I don't think this change needs to be predicated on a big change landing first like the LV

> You have similar problems with https://reviews.llvm.org/D79100 The new revision D79100<https://reviews.llvm.org/D79100> solves your comment 1), and I don't think your comments2) and 3) apply as there are no vendor specific intrinsics involved at all here. Just to quickly discuss the optimisation pipeline, D79100<https://reviews.llvm.org/D79100> is a small extension for the

Hi Ayal, Let me start with commenting on this: > A dedicated intrinsic that freezes the compare instruction, for no apparent reason, may potentially cripple subsequent passes from further optimizing the vectorized loop. The point is we have a very good reason, which is that it passes on the right information on the backend, enabling opimisations as opposed to crippling them. The compare

> The compare of interest is clear, I think. It compares a Vector Induction Variable with a broadcasted loop invariant value, aka the BTC. Obtaining the latter operand is the goal, clearly, but to do so, the former operand needs to be recognized as a VIV. Yep, exactly that. > What if this compare is not generated by LV’s fold-tail-by-masking transformation? Not sure I completely follow

Hi, I abandoned that approach and followed Eli's suggestion, see somewhere earlier in this thread, and emit an intrinsic that represents/calculates the active mask. I've just uploaded a new revision for D79100 that implements this. Cheers. ________________________________ From: Simon Moll <Simon.Moll at EMEA.NEC.COM> Sent: 18 May 2020 13:32 To: Sjoerd Meijer <Sjoerd.Meijer at

> The harm comes if the intrinsic ends up with the wrong value, or attached to the wrong loop. The intrinsic is marked as IntrNoDuplicate, so I wasn't worried about it ending up somewhere else. Also, it is a property of a specific loop, a tail-folded vector loop, that holds even after it is transformed I think. I.e. unrolling a vector loop is probably not what you want, but even if you do

On 11/6/20 12:39 PM, Sjoerd Meijer wrote: Hello Simon, Thanks for your replies, very useful. And yes, thanks for the example and making the target differences clear: ; Some examples: ; RISC-V V & VE(*): ; %mask = (splat i1 1) ; %evl = min(256, %n - %i) ; MVE/SVE : ; %mask = get.active.lane.mask(%i, %n) ; %evl = call @llvm.vscale() ; AVX: ; %mask = icmp (%i + (seq

Hi Roger, That's a good example, that shows most of the moving parts involved here. In a nutshell, the difference is, and what we would like to make explicit, is the vector trip versus the scalar loop trip count. In your IR example, the loads/stores are predicated on a mask that is calculated from a splat induction variable, which is compared with the vector trip count. Illustrated with your

Hello, We are working on predication for our vector extension (MVE). Since quite a few people are working on predication and different forms of it (e.g. SVE, RISC-V, NEC), I thought I would share what we would like to add to the loop vectoriser. Hopefully it's just a minor one and not intrusive, but could be interesting and useful for others, and feedback on this is welcome of course. TL;DR:

On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 3:37 PM Chris Tetreault <ctetreau at quicinc.com> wrote: > We’re talking about verbose output right? Verbose isn’t the default. > I'm fairly certain the issue in this thread is just the verbosity of -dump-input=fail. Yes, -vv makes it even more verbose by annotating input lines with good matches, etc., but that's not part of the "new

Sorry if I wasn't clear about my use case. In my daily dev work, I do many local "ninja check"s, or "llvm-lit" on a subdirectory as a quick(er) smoke test if I am making changes in that area (e.g. "llvm-lit ../llvm/test/CodeGen"). Nothing wrong here, as indeed nothing changed here. But in case of a test failure, I want to run just that test: bin/llvm-lit

Hi, > The problem I see is that the warning isn't very actionable. Fully agreed. > Good warnings are supposed to be actionable, but what is the developer supposed to do in this case? This diagnostic is unclear. But to be more precise, the first part says the optimisation could not be performed. This is spot on, and an improvement of what we had before because that didn't issue

> I don't know how you proceed to debug FileCheck failures, but for me most of the time I'll have to figure out which "RUN" line fail and try to execute it manually and then remove the FileCheck pipe to get the raw input and then painfully tried to match the FileCheck error to the actual input. Yeah, not very different from what you described here. If I 'm creating or

Yep, exactly that. We see quite a lot of them, most of them get cleaned up, but not always... Cheers. ________________________________ From: Roger Ferrer Ibáñez <rofirrim at gmail.com> Sent: 16 March 2020 08:53 To: Sjoerd Meijer <Sjoerd.Meijer at arm.com> Cc: LLVM-Dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Sam Parker <Sam.Parker at arm.com> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Redundant copies

Thanks for your replies. That was a very useful discussion. I won't recommit on a Friday afternoon, but will do on Monday, as it looks like we agreed again on the direction and the change. Orthogonal to this change, the interesting topics brought up are improved diagnostics, and the cases the vectoriser misses. I will briefly look why this particular case isn't vectorised, but I suspect

Hi Chris, On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 1:37 PM Chris Tetreault via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > The thing I use normally only shows the first N lines by default (I don’t > know off hand what N is). Honestly, I don’t feel very strongly about the > specific order, but it’s not useful when somebody proposes something on the > list, and nobody voices any dissent

I would guess that in a CI system the order doesn't matter much because you look at a webpage? I looked at some build bots today/yesterday that now also show this, and yeah, it's fine either way, I was guessing. My primary use-case is usage in a terminal, and displaying the errors first followed by all input makes this pretty unusable. ________________________________ From: Chris