This matters for example in following matrix multiply:

int **mmult(int rows, int cols, int **m1, int **m2, int **m3) {
  int i, j, k, val;
  for (i=0; i<rows; i++) {
    for (j=0; j<cols; j++) {
      val = 0;
      for (k=0; k<cols; k++) {
        val += m1[i][k] * m2[k][j];
      }
      m3[i][j] = val;
    }
  }
  return(m3);
}

Taken from the test-suite benchmark Shootout.

We estimate the cost of the multiply to be 2 while we generate 9 instructions
for it and end up being quite a bit slower than the scalar version (48% on my
machine).

Also, properly differentiate between avx1 and avx2. On avx-1 we still split the
vector into 2 128bits and handle the subvector muls like above with 9
instructions.
Only on avx-2 will we have a cost of 9 for v4i64.

I changed the test case in test/Transforms/LoopVectorize/X86/avx1.ll to use an
add instead of a mul because with a mul we now no longer vectorize. I did
verify that the mul would be indeed more expensive when vectorized with 3
kernels:

for (i ...)
   r += a[i] * 3;
for (i ...)
  m1[i] = m1[i] * 3; // This matches the test case in avx1.ll
and a matrix multiply.

In each case the vectorized version was considerably slower.

radar://13304919

llvm-svn: 176403