<div dir="ltr">Zvi, for your test10 case. Isn't the second shuffle splatting element 0 from the first shuffle. And the first shuffle puts element 1 of %tmp5 into element 0. So the correct final result is a splat of element 1 of %tmp5. The undef elements of the first shuffle are never consumed.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">~Craig</div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Rackover, Zvi via llvm-dev <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="m_-425467478749217687WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Thanks, Sanjay, that makes sense. The opportunity for improving instcombining splat sounds promising.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Another question about shuffle simplification. This is a testcase from test/Transforms/InstCombine/<wbr>vec_shuffle.ll:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">define <4 x i32> @test10(<4 x i32> %tmp5) nounwind {<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> %tmp6 = shufflevector <4 x i32> %tmp5, <4 x i32> undef, <4 x i32> <i32 1, i32 undef, i32 undef, i32 undef><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> %tmp7 = shufflevector <4 x i32> %tmp6, <4 x i32> undef, <4 x i32> zeroinitializer<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> ret <4 x i32> %tmp7<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">}<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">opt –instcombine will combine to:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">define <4 x i32> @test10(<4 x i32> %tmp5) nounwind {<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> %tmp7 = shufflevector <4 x i32> %tmp5, <4 x i32> undef, <4 x i32> <i32 1, i32 1, i32 1, i32 1><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> ret <4 x i32> %tmp7<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">}<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Would it be ok to simplify the original function to the following?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">define <4 x i32> @test10(<4 x i32> %tmp5) nounwind {<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> %tmp7 = shufflevector <4 x i32> %tmp5, <4 x i32> undef, <4 x i32> <i32 1, i32 undef, i32 undef, i32 undef><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> ret <4 x i32> %tmp7<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">}<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">If the function is required to return a splat value, then I believe the answer is no, because the undef indices allow returning a value that is not a splat.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Thanks, Zvi<a name="m_-425467478749217687__MailEndCompose"><u></u><u></u></a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="m_-425467478749217687______replyseparator"></a><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Sanjay Patel [mailto:<a href="mailto:spatel@rotateright.com" target="_blank">spatel@rotateright.com</a><wbr>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, March 30, 2017 18:31<br>
<b>To:</b> Rackover, Zvi <<a href="mailto:zvi.rackover@intel.com" target="_blank">zvi.rackover@intel.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> llvm-dev <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: InstructionSimplify: adding a hook for shufflevector instructions<u></u><u></u></span></p><span class="">
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">My grasp of LLVM history isn't great, but I think these are missing because there wasn't much need for vector optimization in IR because there just weren't that many vector opportunities in IR. Ie, the vectorizers
are relatively new, and hand-written vector code (eg, SSE intrinsics in source) generally went straight to the backend as target-specific IR intrinsics.
<br>
<br>
Now that we're vectorizing more aggressively (and plan to do even more) and we're converting target-specific vector source to generic vector IR whenever possible, it makes sense to add these kinds of optimizations.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">One frequently visible sign of scalar privilege in instcombine is the use of "m_ConstantInt". In many cases, this can be converted to "m_APInt" without much effort, and the transform will auto-magically apply to splat vector constants too.<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</span></div>
<p>------------------------------<wbr>------------------------------<wbr>---------<br>
Intel Israel (74) Limited</p><span class="">
<p>This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for<br>
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution<br>
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended<br>
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.</p></span></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
LLVM Developers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>