replaced \param with \p

Thank you, Alexey. I addressed your comments in new upload.

Thank you for prompt review.
Updated patch to address your comments.

In D76956#1983984, @RKSimon wrote:

@vdmitrie I've created D78216 to demonstrate the approach I had in mind.

ping

Addressed comments.

clang-format

Updated getScalarizationOverhead to use new TTI API for chained inserts/extracts.
This reduced cost overestimates in many cases brought with https://reviews.llvm.org/D74976.
Cost model tests adjusted to reflect that.
Tests Transforms/SLPVectorizer/X86/resched.ll and Transforms/LoopVectorize/X86/strided_load_cost.ll reverted to state prior to D74976.

In D76956#1947796, @RKSimon wrote:

We already have getScalarizationOverhead - can't we extend that instead?

Fixed format and test failures.

SO, we have correct implementation and this is just a check to prevent possible bugs in the future?

In D75296#1896620, @ABataev wrote:

Maybe it is better to implement the two-steps approach? If it may lead to a crash, it will definitely cause a crash somewhere

Thanks for the reproducer. Does this one produce an incorrect result, crashes compiler or something else? What exactly?

There is still problem with extracts.
This case shows it:
target datalayout = "e-m:e-p270:32:32-p271:32:32-p272:64:64-i64:64-f80:128-n8:16:32:64-S128"
target triple = "x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu"

Update: I have spent some time investigating unit tests infra and finally came to conclusion that it is not quite possible to create a unit test that calls BoUpSLP::dumpVectorizableTree() as we need to construct BoUpSLP object. We are unable to do that having class forward declaration only.

In D69812#1733047, @ABataev wrote:

Something like llvm/unittests/IR/DominatorTreeBatchUpdatesTest.cpp?

Do you have any ideas how a test might look?

unittests?

In D69812#1732782, @ABataev wrote:

Tests?

Abandoned as issue was fixed with D51748

In D51552#1228072, @tstellar wrote:

I've just updated the patch with some fixes, can you try again?

In D51552#1228027, @tstellar wrote:

What CMake arguments were you using?

cmake -G "Unix Makefiles" -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD="X86" -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX="/your/install/dir" "/local/ll.org/source/root/llvm"

In D51552#1227797, @tstellar wrote:

D51748 proposes refactoring this whole function and effectively makes the same change. Would you be able to test this to see if it helps your uses case?

In D51552#1227791, @rnk wrote:

I looked at the documentation for the cmake install command, but I still have no idea what a component is or what effect this option has. Can you elaborate on that?