Perhaps I’m missing something, but I think I’ve stumbled across a codegen bug in LLVM 10.0.1 related to AVX512. I’ve attached a small LLVM IR testcase and generated x86_64 assembly file that shows the bug.
The test case is small, but not quite minimal, mostly because of driver code included in the test case so one can compile and run the program. The program does a simple vectorizable computation two ways — once with a vectorized loop, and then with a recursive function that contains a vectorized loop at its base case — and then compares the results of those two computations. If it behaves correctly, both computations should produce the same result, and the program should produce no output. But right now it seems that the recursive-function version produces roughly half incorrect results, in a repeating pattern of 4 correct results followed by 4 incorrect results. (There are also some commented-out lines in the LLVM file, from my own testing of alternative implementations to confirm that the recurisve-function code is otherwise correct.)
The crux seems to be that the recursive function, _Z7loopdacllPjl, takes a vector of 8 64-bit integers as one of its arguments. There’s no issue with such an argument in LLVM IR, but the generated assembly seems to be incorrect. Examining the assembly file, it seems that _Z7loopdacllPjl loads this vector argument off the stack with a 64-byte reload (notably on line 78). But before the call to _Z7loopdacllPjl from main (line 595), I only see a single 32-byte spill corresponding to this vector argument. Hence, it seems that the vectorized loop in _Z7loopdacllPjl gets a vector half-filled with garbage values, leading to the observed misbehavior.
I’m not familiar enough with LLVM’s x86_64 backend to understand why it generates this particular assembly. But the generated assembly seems incorrect to me. Am I missing something?
Please let me know if there’s any other information you need from me.
avx512_codegen_bug.ll (39.3 KB)
avx512_codegen_bug.s (31.4 KB)
I believe this is an interaction with our method for avoiding zmm registers on skylake-avx512 by default. The clang frontend adds a function attribute “min-legal-vector-width” to tell about any explicit vectors used in function arguments, returns, inline assembly, or x86intrin.h intrinsics used by the C code. The backend uses this to know if any 512 bit vectors it sees came from the user code or from the auto vectorizers. If it came from user code we need to use zmm, but if it came from the auto vectorizers we’re allowed to split into smaller vectors.
In your case your main function has the “min-legal-vector-width” attribute set to 0 which means the original C code was all scalar. None of the other functions have the attribute. So the backend thinks any vectors it sees in main came from the auto vectorizers and are allowed to be split. Lack of attribute is treated conservatively. We assume that the vector widths weren’t checked. So any 512-bit vectors will use zmm in the other functions.
I notice in the ll file that the call to main has been modified to use a vector when it didn’t originally. So clang didn’t see the vector when it generated the code. I think you can remove the min-legal-vector-width attribute to fix your issue.
Hope that helps. Let me know if you have any questions.
I forgot, another option is to compile your main with -mprefer-vector-width=512 which will add another attribute “prefer-vector-width” to main that will tell the backend to not split 512 bit vectors either.
Thanks for the clarification. Your tip about removing min-legal-vector-width does seem to work on this test case.
For additional context, I developed this test case based on a problem I encountered from a custom LLVM pass that outlines loops into separate functions. Looking again at that original problem, it looks like the caller, from which the vectorized loop was outlined, still has min-legal-vector-width=0 after outlining. It seems like the right answer is for that custom pass to remove the min-legal-vector-width attribute from the caller after outlining. Does that sound right to you?
Thanks again for your help.