[llvm-dev] [RFC] Expose user provided vector function for auto-vectorization.

Elovikov, Andrei via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Mon Jun 10 11:09:36 PDT 2019

Hi Francesco,

> I am crafting the attribute so that it makes it explicit that we are using OpenMP and we are expecting a Vector Function ABI.

I just thought that another option would be to force FE to always emit "logically"-widened alwaysinline wrapper for the vector function that does the arguments processing according to ABI inside (we need that info in the FE anyway). That way the vectorizer pass won't need to care about the tricky processing and we (possibly) will get a somewhat easier to understand IR after the vectorizer.

Is that something that might work?


-----Original Message-----
From: Francesco Petrogalli <Francesco.Petrogalli at arm.com> 
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 09:09
To: Elovikov, Andrei <andrei.elovikov at intel.com>
Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org; Saito, Hideki <hideki.saito at intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Expose user provided vector function for auto-vectorization.

Hi Andrei,

> On Jun 7, 2019, at 5:46 PM, Elovikov, Andrei <andrei.elovikov at intel.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
> [I'm only subscribed to digest, so the reply doesn't look great, sorry 
> about that]
>> The second component is a tool that other parts of LLVM (for example, the loop vectorizer) can use to query the availability of the vector function, the SVFS I have described in the original post of the RFC, which is based on interpreting the `vector-variant` attribute.
>> The final component is the one that seems to have generated most of the controversies discussed in the thread, and for which I decided to move away from `declare variant`.
> Where will the mapping between parameters positions be stored? Using the example from https://software.intel.com/en-us/cpp-compiler-developer-guide-and-reference-vector-variant:
> float MyAdd(float* a, int b) { return *a + b; } 
> __declspec(vector_variant(implements(MyAdd(float *a, int b)),
>                          linear(a), vectorlength(8),
>                          nomask, processor(core_2nd_gen_avx)))
> __m256 __regcall MyAddVec(float* v_a, __m128i v_b1, __m128i v_b2)
> We need somehow communicate which lanes of widened "b" would map for the b1 parameter and which would go to the b2. If we only care about single ABI (like the one mandated by the OMP) than such things could be put to TTI, but what about other ABIs? Should we encode this explicitly in the annotation too?

I think that the mapping between a scalar parameter and the correspondent vector parameter(s - there can be more than one) should be handled by the Vector Function ABI when a vector function ABI is defined.

I am working out on a new proposal, I’ll keep you posted.

I think that the requirements of 1. being a user feature 2. Based on a standard (OpenMP), implies the fact that a contract between the scalar functions and the vector functions must be stipulated in some document, such document being a vector function ABI for the target.

I am crafting the attribute so that it makes it explicit that we are using OpenMP and we are expecting a Vector Function ABI.

Kind regards,


> Best Regards,
> Andrei

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list