[LLVMdev] Rework of Vector/Scalar Classification
gohman at apple.com
Tue Dec 8 14:01:42 PST 2009
On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:08 PM, David Greene wrote:
> On Tuesday 08 December 2009 13:23, Chris Lattner wrote:
>> Your diff isn't clean and won't apply to mainline, you have some
>> previously committed changes, like the extraneous #include of
> Yes, I know. I was simply asking for a review. I can regenerate it
> if you wish.
>> More significantly, as I mentioned before, I don't think this is a
>> great way to go. For MachineOperands on X86, you either have a
>> register operand (which is obvious whether it is vector or not) or you
>> have a collection of addressing mode stuff, which is decomposed and
>> "not an operand".
> I don't see how a register MachineOperand is obviously a vector unless
> there's type information somewhere that I'm missing.
It has a register which has a register class. It's true that LLVM
currently uses one register class for both scalar and vector uses
of XMM registers on x86, but you could argue that that's a problem
which should be fixed for other reasons anyway -- it may allow
the use of subreg operators to model referencing the first element
of a vector, which would allow the coalescer to coalesce them.
> That decomposed addressing stuff is interesting, because if one of
> your addressing compoenent is a vector, you have a gather-scatter
>> What is the expected use case for "vector" operands that are not
>> registers? What do you plan to use this information for?
> Well, as I explained earlier, I wanted to add type information to
> MachinbeMemOperands so I could comment spills as either Vector or
> Scalar. That's less important now, so that's why I decided to
> drop that for the time being. I still think type information in
> the MachineMemOperand is a good idea because it preserves useful
> information longer. But I'll come back to that if/when I have
> a stronger need.
> As for this patch, which marks instructions and operands as vector,
> I don't have an immediate use other than it originally drove the
> vector/scalar spill marking before Evan (quite rightly) asked for
> a more general approach to deciding if an instruction is a vector
> operation. At that point I decided that the MachineMemOperand needed
> to change to mark spills.
> In the future, I could imagine this being useful for doing peeps
> and other things where we might like to know the cost of an instruction,
> analyze the % of a function vectorized, etc.
The cost of an instruction depends on the opcode; Vector vs Scalar
isn't meaningful there. % of a function vectorized is a rough
heuristic at best, and we can't afford to carry around every bit of
information that someone might theoretically use for a rough heuristic
> For now, I just don't want to lose this work. Even just applying this
> and immediately reverting it is better than nothing because it will
> at least be preserved in the repository history.
Please don't abuse the repository like this.
More information about the llvm-dev