================
@@ -3589,6 +3596,42 @@ 
tryToMatchAndCreateMulAccumulateReduction(VPReductionRecipe *Red,
     Sub = VecOp->getDefiningRecipe();
     VecOp = Tmp;
   }
+
+  // If ValB is a constant and can be safely extended, truncate it to the same
+  // type as ExtA's operand, then extend it to the same type as ExtA. This
+  // creates two uniform extends that can more easily be matched by the rest of
+  // the bundling code. The ExtB reference, ValB and operand 1 of Mul are all
+  // replaced with the new extend of the constant.
+  auto ExtendAndReplaceConstantOp = [&Ctx](VPWidenCastRecipe *ExtA,
+                                           VPWidenCastRecipe *&ExtB,
+                                           VPValue *&ValB, VPWidenRecipe *Mul) 
{
+    if (ExtA && !ExtB && ValB->isLiveIn()) {
+      Type *NarrowTy = Ctx.Types.inferScalarType(ExtA->getOperand(0));
+      Type *WideTy = Ctx.Types.inferScalarType(ExtA);
+      Instruction::CastOps ExtOpc = ExtA->getOpcode();
+      auto *Const = dyn_cast<ConstantInt>(ValB->getLiveInIRValue());
+      if (Const &&
+          llvm::canConstantBeExtended(
+              Const, NarrowTy, TTI::getPartialReductionExtendKind(ExtOpc))) {
+        // The truncate ensures that the type of each extended operand is the
+        // same, and it's been proven that the constant can be extended from
+        // NarrowTy safely. Necessary since ExtA's extended operand would be
+        // e.g. an i8, while the const will likely be an i32. This will be
+        // elided by later optimisations.
----------------
sdesmalen-arm wrote:

> Could we avoid introcuding the explicit cast recipe by just creating a new 
> extended live-in?

Is there any particular downside to creating the explicit cast recipe? (I'm 
asking in case handling this in pattern matching and VPExpression recipes would 
be tricky for some reason)

> There currently are quite a bit of changes in the diff that make it a bit 
> difficult to see how that directly relates to supporting constants

FWIW, a lot of the changes in this PR currently are unrelated to supporting 
constants, so I've asked those to be removed from this PR 
(https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/162503#discussion_r2454676680 and 
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/162503#discussion_r2454677805)

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/162503
_______________________________________________
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits

Reply via email to