Update the entire regression test suite for the new shuffles. Remove
most of the old testing which was devoted to the old shuffle lowering
path and is no longer relevant really. Also remove a few other random
tests that only really exercised shuffles and only incidently or without
any interesting aspects to them.
Benchmarking that I have done shows a few small regressions with this on
LNT, zero measurable regressions on real, large applications, and for
several benchmarks where the loop vectorizer fires in the hot path it
shows 5% to 40% improvements for SSE2 and SSE3 code running on Sandy
Bridge machines. Running on AMD machines shows even more dramatic
improvements.
When using newer ISA vector extensions the gains are much more modest,
but the code is still better on the whole. There are a few regressions
being tracked (PR21137, PR21138, PR21139) but by and large this is
expected to be a win for x86 generated code performance.
It is also more correct than the code it replaces. I have fuzz tested
this extensively with ISA extensions up through AVX2 and found no
crashes or miscompiles (yet...). The old lowering had a few miscompiles
and crashers after a somewhat smaller amount of fuzz testing.
There is one significant area where the new code path lags behind and
that is in AVX-512 support. However, there was *extremely little*
support for that already and so this isn't a significant step backwards
and the new framework will probably make it easier to implement lowering
that uses the full power of AVX-512's table-based shuffle+blend (IMO).
Many thanks to Quentin, Andrea, Robert, and others for benchmarking
assistance. Thanks to Adam and others for help with AVX-512. Thanks to
Hal, Eric, and *many* others for answering my incessant questions about
how the backend actually works. =]
I will leave the old code path in the tree until the 3 PRs above are at
least resolved to folks' satisfaction. Then I will rip it (and 1000s of
lines of code) out. =] I don't expect this flag to stay around for very
long. It may not survive next week.
llvm-svn: 219046
insertions.
The old behavior could cause arbitrarily bad memory usage in the DAG
combiner if there was heavy traffic of adding nodes already on the
worklist to it. This commit switches the DAG combine worklist to work
the same way as the instcombine worklist where we null-out removed
entries and only add new entries to the worklist. My measurements of
codegen time shows slight improvement. The memory utilization is
unsurprisingly dominated by other factors (the IR and DAG itself
I suspect).
This change results in subtle, frustrating churn in the particular order
in which DAG combines are applied which causes a number of minor
regressions where we fail to match a pattern previously matched by
accident. AFAICT, all of these should be using AddToWorklist to directly
or should be written in a less brittle way. None of the changes seem
drastically bad, and a few of the changes seem distinctly better.
A major change required to make this work is to significantly harden the
way in which the DAG combiner handle nodes which become dead
(zero-uses). Previously, we relied on the ability to "priority-bump"
them on the combine worklist to achieve recursive deletion of these
nodes and ensure that the frontier of remaining live nodes all were
added to the worklist. Instead, I've introduced a routine to just
implement that precise logic with no indirection. It is a significantly
simpler operation than that of the combiner worklist proper. I suspect
this will also fix some other problems with the combiner.
I think the x86 changes are really minor and uninteresting, but the
avx512 change at least is hiding a "regression" (despite the test case
being just noise, not testing some performance invariant) that might be
looked into. Not sure if any of the others impact specific "important"
code paths, but they didn't look terribly interesting to me, or the
changes were really minor. The consensus in review is to fix any
regressions that show up after the fact here.
Thanks to the other reviewers for checking the output on other
architectures. There is a specific regression on ARM that Tim already
has a fix prepped to commit.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D4616
llvm-svn: 213727
If there is a store after the load node, then there is a chain, which means
that there is another user. Thus, asking hasOneUser would fail. Instead we
ask hasNUsesOfValue on the 'data' value.
llvm-svn: 131183
Chandler Carruth