Generalizing shuffle vector


The current definition of shuffle vector is
= shufflevector <n x > , <n x > , ; yields <n x >

The first two operands of a ‘shufflevector’ instruction are vectors with types that match each other and types that match the result of the instruction. The third argument is a shuffle mask, which has the same number of elements as the other vector type, but whose element type is always ‘i32’. The shuffle mask operand is required to be a constant vector with either constant integer or undef values.

I am proposing to extend the shuffle vector definition to be
= shufflevector <n x > , <n x > , ; yields <m x >

The third argument is the shuffle mask and it is not required to have the same number of elements as the other vector type but the element type is still always ‘i32’

The reason for this change is to allow us to handle vectors much more naturally, allows the generated IR to reflect the structure of the user code, and most importantly do a better job in code generation. Today, building a vector for different lengths requires a sequence of extracting each element in the vector and inserting each element into a new vector. With this new form, it is more straightforward to write and reason about

typedef attribute(( ext_vector_type(4) )) float float4;
typedef attribute(( ext_vector_type(8) )) float float8;
float8 f8;
float4 f4a, f4b, f4c;
f4a = f8.hi;
f8.hi = f4b; f8.lo = f4c;

where hi and lo represent the high half and low half of the vector. The outgoing IR is
%f4a = shufflevector <8xf32>%f8, undef, <4xi32> <0, 1, 2, 3>

%f8 = shufflevector <4xf32>%f4b, <4xf32>%f4c, <8xi32> <0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7>

The problem with generating insert and extracts is that we can generate poor code

%tmp16 = extractelement <4 x float> %f4b, i32 0
%f8a = insertelement <8 x float> %f8a, float %tmp16, i32 0
%tmp18 = extractelement <4 x float> %f4b, i32 1
%f8c = insertelement <8 x float> %f8b, float %tmp18, i32 1

For X86, legalize will convert each insertelement to become a vector shuffle. We are very careful in combining vector shuffles because we don’t want to produce a vector shuffle whose mask is illegal or hard to code gen so we end up in this code to generate a sequence of unpcks and movhlps for this. With the new form, Legalize will divide the 8xf32 vector into two 4xf32 and since the two sides are the same, it will generate quad word moves to copy the values.

There are other cases when a user write vector code, the generation of extract element and insert elements will cause us to lose the structure of the original vector code and without this structure, the code generator will not generate code for it.

Please let me know if you have any comments, suggestions, or concerns,

– Mon Ping

Hi Mon Ping,

Generalizing shufflevector would be great. I have an additional suggestion below.

I am proposing to extend the shuffle vector definition to be
<result> = shufflevector <n x <ty>> <v1>, <n x <ty>> <v2>, <m x i32> <mask> ; yields <m x <ty>>

The third argument is the shuffle mask and it is not required to have the same number of elements as the other vector type but the element type is still always 'i32'

I've previously proposed an even further generalization of shufflevector to:

<result> = shufflevector <n1 x <ty>> <v1>, <n2 x <ty>> <v2>, <m x i32> <mask> ; yields <m x <ty>>

where n1 does not have the be the same as n2. This makes shufflevector completely generic, and in fact allows even insertelement and extractelement to be represented using it (not that I necessarily think they should be, it's just a nice side effect).

If this is feasible, it would be nice to extend it all the way. This lets you do things like:

float3 x;
float4 y;

  // ... = x;

as a single shufflevector, e.g.:

   %y2 = shufflevector <4xf32> %y1, <3xf32> %x, <4, 5, 6, 3>

I assume my proposed generalization can't hurt codegen, since it could always be turned into a sequence of insert and extracts which would provide the same behaviour as today.

I agree further generalization seems like a very good idea. But I'd like to see what Mon Ping proposed implemented first so we have a better idea of the implementation cost.




I agree that the more general shufflevector is more useful. I narrowed the original proposal a little bit because of the concern for the implementation cost. However, the slightly narrowed definition will probably require falling backing to generate insert and extracts for complex masks so it is possible that there will be no extra cost in supporting the more general definition. If that is the case, it will make sense to support the more general shuffle vector definition.

   -- Mon Ping

I agree with Mon Ping and Evan. Lets feature creep it one step at a time :).


I think this specific issue can be fixed without extending the
IL-level syntax; DAGCombiner could easily be made a lot more clever
about cases like this. For example, before legalization, we can
transform an INSERT_VECTOR_ELT inserting an element into a constant
vector or a SCALAR_TO_VECTOR into a BUILD_VECTOR, and we can transform
cases. We can also make the lowering significantly more clever about
dealing with insertelement.

If what we currently have isn't sufficient, I think the first step is
to extend VECTOR_SHUFFLE to be more flexible, and implement the
relevant combines to make that effective. I don't think it makes
sense to add this extension to the IL before it's proven that we can
do CodeGen on it reasonably.

I'm not necessarily against this extension, but since we're talking
about constructs which can already represented in the IL without
losing too much semantic information, we really want to be going about
this from the bottom up. It's going to be hard to properly see the
concrete benefits without a solid baseline to compare against.


Hi Eli,

I understand your concern and your question is a good one. In this specific example, you are right about being more clever in DAGCombiner. I did start to go down this road and implemented something similar to what you suggested and it does work reasonably well for that specific example. There are other cases though that this approach doesn't work well where by generating insert/extracts, we lose the structure of the vector program. Let me see if I can add some more motivation in favor of this change. Consider the following case where we are doing a transpose by dividing a 16 wide vector into four 4 wide vectors.

typedef __attribute__(( ext_vector_type(4) )) float float4;
typedef __attribute__(( ext_vector_type(16) )) float float16;
float16 f16;
float4 f4a, f4b, f4c, f4d, t;
f4a = f16.hi.hi; f4b = f16.hi.lo; f4c = f16.lo.hi; f4d = f16.hi.hi;
f4a = __builtin_ia32_unpcklps( f4a, f4c );
t = __builtin_ia32_unpckhps( t, f4c );
f4c = f4b;
f4a = __builtin_ia32_unpcklps( f4a, f4d );
f4b = __builtin_ia32_unpckhps( f4b, f4d );
f16.lo.lo = __builtin_ia32_unpcklps( f4a, f4b );
f16.lo.hi = __builtin_ia32_unpckhps( f4a, f4b );
f16.hi.lo = __builtin_ia32_unpcklps( t, f4c );
f16.hi.hi = __builtin_ia32_unpckhps( t, f4c );

All this code is that if you have <0, 1, 2, 3, 4..., 15>, you will get <0, 4, 8, 12, 1, 5, 9, 13, 2 ..., 15>. Each of builtins maps to a vector shuffle. After opt is run, we end up with a extract of each element and an insert into the correct location. It is difficult for the code generator to rebuild the correct series of shuffles as it requires that doing shuffles for one float4 of the result, you are also doing some work for another float4. It is possible to retain the structure of the vectors by preventing opt from optimizing away any shuffle operations but we might miss some optimizations opportunities when the code is really extracting a few elements and using it in a scalar context.

From a different perspective, the insert and extracts are breaking up vectors by scalarizing it elements and then in code generation, we are rebuilding the vectors again and their operation. Assuming that the vector code is well written, it will be advantageous for us to retain the structure of the incoming program and optimize and change it when we know we can do better than that. With insert and extract, it is easier for us to lose the structure of the incoming vector as we optimize it. It just seems cleaner to me that when we manipulate vectors that they can remain vectors.

   -- Mon Ping