[llvm] [VectorCombine] foldShuffleOfBinops - add support for length changing shuffles (PR #88899)

[Simon Pilgrim via llvm-commits]

================
@@ -1394,55 +1394,85 @@ bool VectorCombine::scalarizeLoadExtract(Instruction &I) {
   return true;
 }
 
-/// Try to convert "shuffle (binop), (binop)" with a shared binop operand into
-/// "binop (shuffle), (shuffle)".
+/// Try to convert "shuffle (binop), (binop)" into "binop (shuffle), (shuffle)".
 bool VectorCombine::foldShuffleOfBinops(Instruction &I) {
-  auto *VecTy = cast<FixedVectorType>(I.getType());
   BinaryOperator *B0, *B1;
-  ArrayRef<int> Mask;
+  ArrayRef<int> OldMask;
   if (!match(&I, m_Shuffle(m_OneUse(m_BinOp(B0)), m_OneUse(m_BinOp(B1)),
-                           m_Mask(Mask))) ||
-      B0->getOpcode() != B1->getOpcode() || B0->getType() != VecTy)
+                           m_Mask(OldMask))))
     return false;
 
-  // Try to replace a binop with a shuffle if the shuffle is not costly.
-  // The new shuffle will choose from a single, common operand, so it may be
-  // cheaper than the existing two-operand shuffle.
-  SmallVector<int> UnaryMask = createUnaryMask(Mask, Mask.size());
+  // TODO: Add support for addlike etc.
   Instruction::BinaryOps Opcode = B0->getOpcode();
-  InstructionCost BinopCost = TTI.getArithmeticInstrCost(Opcode, VecTy);
-  InstructionCost ShufCost = TTI.getShuffleCost(
-      TargetTransformInfo::SK_PermuteSingleSrc, VecTy, UnaryMask);
-  if (ShufCost > BinopCost)
+  if (Opcode != B1->getOpcode())
+    return false;
+
+  auto *ShuffleDstTy = dyn_cast<FixedVectorType>(I.getType());
+  auto *BinOpTy = dyn_cast<FixedVectorType>(B0->getType());
+  if (!ShuffleDstTy || !BinOpTy)
     return false;
 
+  unsigned NumSrcElts = BinOpTy->getNumElements();
+
   // If we have something like "add X, Y" and "add Z, X", swap ops to match.
   Value *X = B0->getOperand(0), *Y = B0->getOperand(1);
   Value *Z = B1->getOperand(0), *W = B1->getOperand(1);
   if (BinaryOperator::isCommutative(Opcode) && X != Z && Y != W)
     std::swap(X, Y);
----------------
RKSimon wrote:

Yes, I left this in as it was added by @rotateright in the original implementation and removing it does cause some test case churn, but I'll see if we can limit it to cases where we end up with (fully/partially) matching operands.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/88899