A fix for bug33826

[Farhana]

Summary

X86Interleave should not try handle cases where the wide-load size is less than the factor*num_elements.

[DavidKreitzer]

lib/Target/X86/X86InterleavedAccess.cpp

106

It is not just a question of profitability. If lowerIntoOptimizedSequence were called for a load instruction that is too small, it would make an incorrect transformation, because the decompose function would generate Factor loads, each of size ShuffleVecSize.

I would also recommend a slightly different fix. Rather than checking the expected shuffle size for both the load & the store, I would check the "expected wide vector size". For loads, that means checking the type of the load. For stores, it means checking the type of the shuffle.

[Farhana]

lib/Target/X86/X86InterleavedAccess.cpp

106

It is not just a question of profitability. If lowerIntoOptimizedSequence were called for a load instruction that is too small, it would make an incorrect transformation, because the decompose function would generate Factor loads, each of size ShuffleVecSize.

But, we could handle it easily by generating dummy vectors. And the reason we are not doing that because it will generate inefficient sequence. So, it boils down to the profitability.

[DavidKreitzer]

lib/Target/X86/X86InterleavedAccess.cpp

106

You could make the ShuffleVecTy check more generic by testing this, which is similar to what you had before adding interleaved store support:

if (WideInstSize != DL.getTypeSizeInBits(ShuffleVecType) * Factor)
  return false;

I get your point about the profitability. I think your comment in the test adequately captures that.

[Farhana]

lib/Target/X86/X86InterleavedAccess.cpp

106

I cannot write the way you suggested, it would be incorrect. We are checking the ShuffleVecType, so it can't be multiplied with Factor.

For store, it will check against 1024 * 4.

[Farhana]

lib/Target/X86/X86InterleavedAccess.cpp

106

But we can make it semi generic by hardcoding the number of elements.

[DavidKreitzer]

lib/Target/X86/X86InterleavedAccess.cpp

106

I cannot write the way you suggested, it would be incorrect. We are checking the ShuffleVecType, so it can't be multiplied with Factor. For store, it will check against 1024 * 4.

But the code in question is guarded by isa<LoadInst>(Inst). At any rate, what you have is fine if you change 256 to ShuffleElemSize * SupportedNumElem.

[Farhana]

lib/Target/X86/X86InterleavedAccess.cpp

106

if (WideInstSize != DL.getTypeSizeInBits(ShuffleVecType) * Factor)

return false;

But the code in question is guarded by isa<LoadInst>(Inst).

But ShuffleVecType is type of shuffles[0] which can be different load vs store. So, comparing WideInstSize with DL.getTypeSizeInBits(ShuffleVecType) * Factor will result in incorrect value.

When it's a store, it will compare with with 1024 * 4.

At any rate, what you have is fine if you change 256 to ShuffleElemSize * SupportedNumElem.

It will produce incorrect result in the current code since ShuffleElemSize is not guaranteed to be 4 at that point.

I like the way it is since all checks are confined in one place, make it look clean. But I don't mind to change it since you prefer the other way.

[Farhana]

lib/Target/X86/X86InterleavedAccess.cpp

106

Regarding 256, I take it back. You are right, we don't need the element size check.

[DavidKreitzer]

Thanks, Farhana. LGTM.

lib/Target/X86/X86InterleavedAccess.cpp

public:
   /// \brief Lowers this interleaved access group into X86-specific
   /// instructions/intrinsics.
   bool lowerIntoOptimizedSequence();
 };
 } // end anonymous namespace
 
 bool X86InterleavedAccessGroup::isSupported() const {
   VectorType *ShuffleVecTy = Shuffles[0]->getType();
-  uint64_t ShuffleVecSize = DL.getTypeSizeInBits(ShuffleVecTy);
   Type *ShuffleEltTy = ShuffleVecTy->getVectorElementType();
+  unsigned WideInstSize;
 
   // Currently, lowering is supported for 4-element vectors of 64 bits on AVX.
-  uint64_t ExpectedShuffleVecSize;
-  if (isa<LoadInst>(Inst))
-    ExpectedShuffleVecSize = 256;
-  else
-    ExpectedShuffleVecSize = 1024;
+  if (isa<LoadInst>(Inst)) {
+    if (DL.getTypeSizeInBits(ShuffleVecTy) != 256)
+      return false;
+
+    WideInstSize = DL.getTypeSizeInBits(Inst->getType());
+  } else
+    WideInstSize = DL.getTypeSizeInBits(Shuffles[0]->getType());
 
-  if (!Subtarget.hasAVX() || ShuffleVecSize != ExpectedShuffleVecSize ||
+  if (!Subtarget.hasAVX() || WideInstSize != 1024 ||
       DL.getTypeSizeInBits(ShuffleEltTy) != 64 || Factor != 4)
     return false;
 
   return true;
 }
 
 void X86InterleavedAccessGroup::decompose(
     Instruction *VecInst, unsigned NumSubVectors, VectorType *SubVecTy,

test/Transforms/InterleavedAccess/X86/interleaved-accesses-64bits-avx.ll

 ; CHECK-NEXT:    ret void
 ;
   %s0 = shufflevector <16 x double> %v0, <16 x double> %v1, <32 x i32> <i32 0, i32 1, i32 2, i32 3, i32 4, i32 5, i32 6, i32 7, i32 8, i32 9, i32 10, i32 11, i32 12, i32 13, i32 14, i32 15, i32 16, i32 17, i32 18, i32 19, i32 20, i32 21, i32 22, i32 23, i32 24, i32 25, i32 26, i32 27, i32 28, i32 29, i32 30, i32 31>
   %s1 = shufflevector <16 x double> %v2, <16 x double> %v3, <32 x i32> <i32 0, i32 1, i32 2, i32 3, i32 4, i32 5, i32 6, i32 7, i32 8, i32 9, i32 10, i32 11, i32 12, i32 13, i32 14, i32 15, i32 16, i32 17, i32 18, i32 19, i32 20, i32 21, i32 22, i32 23, i32 24, i32 25, i32 26, i32 27, i32 28, i32 29, i32 30, i32 31>
   %interleaved.vec = shufflevector <32 x double> %s0, <32 x double> %s1, <16 x i32> <i32 4, i32 32, i32 16, i32 8, i32 5, i32 33, i32 17, i32 9, i32 6, i32 34, i32 18, i32 10, i32 7, i32 35, i32 19, i32 11>
   store <16 x double> %interleaved.vec, <16 x double>* %ptr, align 16
   ret void
 }
+
+; This verifies whether the test passes and does not hit any assertions.
+; Today, X86InterleavedAccess could have handled this case and
+; generate transposed sequence by extending the current implementation
+; which would be creating dummy vectors of undef. But it decided not to
+; optimize these cases where the load-size is less Factor * NumberOfElements.
+; Because a better sequence can easily be generated by CG.
+
+@a = local_unnamed_addr global <4 x double> zeroinitializer, align 32
+; Function Attrs: norecurse nounwind readonly uwtable
+define <4 x double> @test_unhandled(<4 x double> %b) {
+entry:
+  %0 = load <4 x double>, <4 x double>* @a, align 32
+  %1 = shufflevector <4 x double> %0, <4 x double> undef, <4 x i32> <i32 3, i32 undef, i32 undef, i32 undef>
+  %shuffle = shufflevector <4 x double> %1, <4 x double> %b, <4 x i32> <i32 0, i32 4, i32 0, i32 0>
+  ret <4 x double> %shuffle
+}