[llvm-dev] [RFC] Replace `unsigned VF` with `ElementCount VF` [NFCI]

[Hal Finkel via llvm-dev]

Hi, Francesco,

I've taken a look at the patch, and I think that this is a good 
approach. One thing that I want to point out here is that the recipe 
mentioned in the patch description, including:

  * VF == 1replaced withVF.isScalar().
  * VF > 1andVF >=2replaced withVF.isVector().
  * VF <=1is replaced withVF.isZero() || VF.isScalar().

appears to me to be a nice readability enhancement to the code 
independent of anything else. There might be a lot of changes, but they 
seem mostly mechanical, and they seem to make the code more readable, so 
they pay for themselves in that regard.

Thanks again,

Hal


On 8/11/20 5:58 PM, Francesco Petrogalli via llvm-dev wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am working on replacing `unsigned VF` with `ElementCount VF` in the vectorizer.
>
> I have submitted an RFC patch to fabricator just to show how it looks like: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85794
>
> Just to be clear. I am not trying to get this patch in as it is, I am just asking for some feedback on the approach.
>
> The changes in the vectorizer are numerous, but mostly mechanical.
>
> I have explained in the description of the patch the changes, which fall in two categories:
>
> 1. changes outsize the vectorizer, which are needed to be able to query things like "how many lanes" are in this "vectorization factor", or to print things to debug streams or remarks.
> 2. changes in the vectorizer that are needed to guarantee a _non functional change_, for example asserting that the ElementCount instance being used to compute a vector reverse cannot be scalable. The code essentially looks the same as before this patch, other than for the fact that I have added such assertions.
>
> I am aware the changes in LoopVectorizer.cpp might be a lot. I am open to consider different incremental approaches.
> One data point here is that my initial approach was to add the `bool Scalable` property to the VectorizationFactor class.
> However, using ElementCount instead of the pair {unsigned, bool} for dealing with the number of lanes inside the VectorizationFactor seemed a natural choice that was worth investigating.
>
> Please let me know what you think!
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Francesco
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

-- 
Hal Finkel
Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200820/3e8ee028/attachment-0001.html>