================
@@ -2746,68 +2763,8 @@ class LLVM_ABI_FOR_TEST VPReductionRecipe : public
VPRecipeWithIRFlags {
VPValue *getCondOp() const {
return isConditional() ? getOperand(getNumOperands() - 1) : nullptr;
}
-};
-
-/// A recipe for forming partial reductions. In the loop, an accumulator and
-/// vector operand are added together and passed to the next iteration as the
-/// next accumulator. After the loop body, the accumulator is reduced to a
-/// scalar value.
-class VPPartialReductionRecipe : public VPReductionRecipe {
- unsigned Opcode;
-
- /// The divisor by which the VF of this recipe's output should be divided
- /// during execution.
- unsigned VFScaleFactor;
-
-public:
- VPPartialReductionRecipe(Instruction *ReductionInst, VPValue *Op0,
- VPValue *Op1, VPValue *Cond, unsigned VFScaleFactor)
- : VPPartialReductionRecipe(ReductionInst->getOpcode(), Op0, Op1, Cond,
- VFScaleFactor, ReductionInst) {}
- VPPartialReductionRecipe(unsigned Opcode, VPValue *Op0, VPValue *Op1,
- VPValue *Cond, unsigned ScaleFactor,
- Instruction *ReductionInst = nullptr)
- : VPReductionRecipe(VPDef::VPPartialReductionSC, RecurKind::Add,
- FastMathFlags(), ReductionInst,
- ArrayRef<VPValue *>({Op0, Op1}), Cond, false, {}),
- Opcode(Opcode), VFScaleFactor(ScaleFactor) {
- [[maybe_unused]] auto *AccumulatorRecipe =
- getChainOp()->getDefiningRecipe();
- // When cloning as part of a VPExpressionRecipe the chain op could have
- // replaced by a temporary VPValue, so it doesn't have a defining recipe.
- assert((!AccumulatorRecipe ||
- isa<VPReductionPHIRecipe>(AccumulatorRecipe) ||
- isa<VPPartialReductionRecipe>(AccumulatorRecipe)) &&
- "Unexpected operand order for partial reduction recipe");
- }
- ~VPPartialReductionRecipe() override = default;
-
- VPPartialReductionRecipe *clone() override {
- return new VPPartialReductionRecipe(Opcode, getOperand(0), getOperand(1),
- getCondOp(), VFScaleFactor,
- getUnderlyingInstr());
- }
-
- VP_CLASSOF_IMPL(VPDef::VPPartialReductionSC)
-
- /// Generate the reduction in the loop.
- void execute(VPTransformState &State) override;
-
- /// Return the cost of this VPPartialReductionRecipe.
- InstructionCost computeCost(ElementCount VF,
- VPCostContext &Ctx) const override;
-
- /// Get the binary op's opcode.
- unsigned getOpcode() const { return Opcode; }
-
/// Get the factor that the VF of this recipe's output should be scaled by.
unsigned getVFScaleFactor() const { return VFScaleFactor; }
----------------
gbossu wrote:
I think this interface is now a bit misleading. We might return `0`, which
actually means the reduction is "scaled" by whatever the loop VF is, not `0`.
Maybe something like below would be clearer:
```
/// Get the factor that the VF of this recipe's output should be scaled by,
/// if it represents a partial reduction.
std::optional<unsigned> getPartialVFScaleFactor() const {
return isPartial() ? VFScaleFactor : std::nullopt;
}
```
This way, it forces users of `getPartialVFScaleFactor()` to question what the
result (or lack thereof) means. What do you think?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/147513
_______________________________________________
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
