[PATCH] D28907: [SLP] Fix for PR30787: Failure to beneficially vectorize 'copyable' elements in integer binary ops.

[Alexey Bataev via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

ABataev added inline comments.


================
Comment at: lib/Transforms/Vectorize/SLPVectorizer.cpp:3244
         isJumbled = true;
-        LI = cast<LoadInst>(E->Scalars[0]);
-      } else {
-        LI = cast<LoadInst>(VL0);
-      }
+      LI = cast<LoadInst>(E->Scalars[0]);
 
----------------
dtemirbulatov wrote:
> We used E->VL0 here before, which is not correct because it could point to a wrong element.
Why could it point to a wrong element? As I understand, it should always point to Scalars[0] for LoadInst.


================
Comment at: lib/Transforms/Vectorize/SLPVectorizer.cpp:3707-3708
+
+  // Check that all non-alternative operations dominate at least
+  // one real vector operation.
+  if (S.IsNonAlt) {
----------------
What is the `real vector operation`? And why do you need this check? You mean that it is allowed to have sequence `load, add`, but not `add ,load`? Why?


================
Comment at: lib/Transforms/Vectorize/SLPVectorizer.cpp:3729
+      }
+    // Check inner vector dependencies
+    for (Instruction *I1 : Alternatives)
----------------
dtemirbulatov wrote:
> I have observed some syntectic testcases where we could have cycle dependencies formed, I am sure without this check we could hit the issue somehow.
I rather doubt that this is required. Actually, you're not vectorizing the instruction itself, but the alternative pseudo-operation.


================
Comment at: test/Transforms/SLPVectorizer/X86/pr35497.ll:1
+; RUN: opt -slp-vectorizer -S -mtriple=x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu < %s
+
----------------
Where are the real checks?


https://reviews.llvm.org/D28907