[llvm-dev] Vectorizing minimum without function attributes
Nicolau Werneck via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Sat May 4 14:51:33 PDT 2019
Thanks for the reply. I should say I'm actually working on 6.0, but I don't
think this part of the code changed much since. These are traces I made
with GDB optimizing a loop with floats and then integers, showing where
This is the point I believe we need to set the function attribute for the
vectorization to work with floats:
Could this be a bug? It seems to me it just wasn't changed yet to depend
only on instruction flags.
I would gladly work on refactoring this if there's an opportunity, but I'm
a complete newbie in this project. It would be great to hear from someone
more knowledgeable what can be done about this issue, especially if turns
out to be a very small patch!
On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 3:41 PM Finkel, Hal J. <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
> On 5/4/19 6:36 AM, llvm-dev wrote:
> The LLVM loop vectorizer does a great job handling reductions with the
> `min(a, b)` function over an array of integers or floats. This finds the
> smallest value of a list exploiting SIMD instructions, and works just as
> well as a summation.
> Specifically with floats, though, using the `fcmp` instruction, the
> vectorization seems to require the function attribute "no-nans-fp-math" to
> be set. Just setting instruction flags is not enough.
> fcmp takes fast-math flags now, but that wasn't always true (my
> recollection is that was a capability added after the arithmetic
> operations). In any case, I wonder if this is just a hold-over from before
> fcmp took fast-math flags, or if this is an && condition that should be an
> || condition.
> This forces us to give up on fine-grained control of fast-math in the code
> in order to benefit from this vectorization.
> How to overcome this? LLVM has intrinsic functions such as `minnum` and
> `minimum` (`minnan`) that accurately represent the operation. This could
> permit fine-grained control of fast-math flags, although the vectorizer
> seems to ignore these intrinsics.
> Beyond this specific case, it would be nice to be sure when is it ever
> necessary to set these function attributes, e.g.
> What would be a way to control the vectorization for `min` without having
> to rely on that function attribute? And furthermore, could LLVM
> optimizations conceivably depend only on instruction flags, and not ever on
> function attributes? What would be necessary to achieve this?
> The goal has been to eliminate the dependence on the function attributes
> once all of the necessary local flags are in place. Obviously I could be
> missing something, but this just seems like a bug.
> Nicolau Werneck <nwerneck at gmail.com>
> http://n <http://nwerneck.sdf.org>ic.hpavc.net
> LLVM Developers mailing listllvm-dev at lists.llvm.orghttps://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
Nicolau Werneck <nwerneck at gmail.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev