[PATCH] LoopVectorizer: Don't attempt to vectorize extractelement instructions

[Nadav Rotem]

On Oct 25, 2013, at 1:29 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
>> You are disabling vectorization for any extractelement. Do they all
>> not work or only the once with a vector operand? (I am not sure we
>> care whether we vectorize code with extractelement for this to be
>> important, I guess).
>> 
>>       // Check that the instruction return type is vectorizable.
>> -      if (!VectorType::isValidElementType(it->getType()) &&
>> -          !it->getType()->isVoidTy()) {
>> +      // Also, we can't vectorize extractelement instructions.
>> +      if ((!VectorType::isValidElementType(it->getType()) &&
>> +           !it->getType()->isVoidTy()) ||
>> isa<ExtractElementInst>(it)) {
> 
> All valid extractelement instructions have a vector operand. Maybe you're thinking about extractvalue (which extracts from aggregates)?
> 
>> 
>> 
>> I think if you specify a triple you must put the test in the targets
>> subdirectory:
>> 
>> +++ b/test/Transforms/LoopVectorize/ee-crash.ll
>> @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
>> +; RUN: opt < %s -loop-vectorize -force-vector-unroll=1
>> -force-vector-width=4 -S | FileCheck %s
>> +
>> +target datalayout =
>> "e-p:64:64:64-i1:8:8-i8:8:8-i16:16:16-i32:32:32-i64:64:64-f32:32:32-f64:64:64-v64:64:64-v128:128:128-a0:0:64-s0:64:64-f80:128:128-n8:16:32:64-S128"
>> +target triple = "x86_64-apple-macosx10.8.0”
>> 
>> Otherwise, the test might fail when llvm is not compiled with x86_64
>> support.
> 
> I don't think that is a problem; or, if it is, then test/Transforms/LoopVectorize/vectorize-once.ll has a problem too.
> 

It is a problem for people who don’t build the x86 target.  The different targets have lit config files that require the different targets to be built.


> Thanks again,
> Hal
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Arnold
>> 
>> On Oct 25, 2013, at 3:13 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
>> 
>>> [With the patch this time].
>>> 
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> Nadav, Arnold,
>>>> 
>>>> The loop vectorizer does not currently understand how to vectorize
>>>> extractelement instructions. The existing check, which excluded
>>>> all
>>>> vector-valued instructions, did not catch extractelement
>>>> instructions
>>>> because
>>>> it checked only the return value. As a result, vectorization would
>>>> proceed,
>>>> producing illegal instructions like this:
>>>> 
>>>> %58 = extractelement <2 x i32> %15, i32 0
>>>> %59 = extractelement i32 %58, i32 0
>>>> 
>>>> where the second extractelement is illegal because its first
>>>> operand
>>>> is not a vector. Later passes (or the verifier) would then crash.
>>>> 
>>>> We could teach the vectorizer to handle this case when
>>>> vectorizing,
>>>> but I think that might be a task better associated with a larger
>>>> effort in vectorizing vectorized loops. Please review.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks again,
>>>> Hal
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Hal Finkel
>>>> Assistant Computational Scientist
>>>> Leadership Computing Facility
>>>> Argonne National Laboratory
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Hal Finkel
>>> Assistant Computational Scientist
>>> Leadership Computing Facility
>>> Argonne National Laboratory
>>> <lv-ee-crash.patch>
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Hal Finkel
> Assistant Computational Scientist
> Leadership Computing Facility
> Argonne National Laboratory

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20131025/c9b2ac1b/attachment.html>