Taewook Oh via llvm-dev
2016-Feb-09 19:30 UTC
[llvm-dev] [GVN] same sequence of instructions in if and else branch
Hello, I found that GVN doesn't promote identical sequence of instructions in if and else branch to their common predecessors. For example, for the following code snippet pred: … br i1 %cmp, label %if, label %else if: %incdec.ptr.1 = getelementptr inbounds i8, i8* %ptr, i64 1 %cast1 = ptrtoint i8* %incdec.ptr.1 to i64 … else: %incdec.ptr.2 = getelementptr inbounds i8, i8* %ptr, i64 1 %cast2 = ptrtoint i8* %incdec.ptr.2 to i64 GVN doesn't move instructions in 'if' and 'else' blocks to 'pred' block even though it knows that incdec.ptr.1/case1 has a same value number with incdec.ptr.2/cast2. I see a case where this kind of redundancy confuses following optimization passes and ends up generating suboptimal code.>From the GVN implementation, it seems that transformation is performed only when the "leader" value dominates the other value, so it cannot handle a case like the above example. I wonder if this is by design or just a missing feature.Thanks, Taewook -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160209/9c0994e0/attachment.html>
mats petersson via llvm-dev
2016-Feb-09 19:34 UTC
[llvm-dev] [GVN] same sequence of instructions in if and else branch
And there's no PHI node after this that depends on the condition? -- Mats On 9 February 2016 at 19:30, Taewook Oh via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> Hello, > > > I found that GVN doesn't promote identical sequence of instructions in if > and else branch to their common predecessors. For example, for the > following code snippet > > > pred: > > … > > br i1 %cmp, label %if, label %else > > if: > > %incdec.ptr.1 = getelementptr inbounds i8, i8* %ptr, i64 1 > > %cast1 = ptrtoint i8* %incdec.ptr.1 to i64 > > … > > else: > > %incdec.ptr.2 = getelementptr inbounds i8, i8* %ptr, i64 1 > > %cast2 = ptrtoint i8* %incdec.ptr.2 to i64 > > > GVN doesn't move instructions in 'if' and 'else' blocks to 'pred' block > even though it knows that incdec.ptr.1/case1 has a same value number with > incdec.ptr.2/cast2. I see a case where this kind of redundancy confuses > following optimization passes and ends up generating suboptimal code. > > > From the GVN implementation, it seems that transformation is performed > only when the "leader" value dominates the other value, so it cannot handle > a case like the above example. I wonder if this is by design or just a > missing feature. > > > Thanks, > > Taewook > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160209/31b156dc/attachment.html>
Taewook Oh via llvm-dev
2016-Feb-09 19:42 UTC
[llvm-dev] [GVN] same sequence of instructions in if and else branch
There is a phi-node "%phi = phi i64 [%cast1, %if], [%cast2, %else]" in the common successor. The actual control flow is a bit more complex, but there is a common successor block, and %cast1 and %cast2 are the two values that the phi node in the common successor takes. Does the existence of the phi node affect optimization? Thanks, Taewook From: <mats.o.petersson at googlemail.com<mailto:mats.o.petersson at googlemail.com>> on behalf of mats petersson <mats at planetcatfish.com<mailto:mats at planetcatfish.com>> Date: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 11:34 AM To: Taewook Oh <twoh at fb.com<mailto:twoh at fb.com>> Cc: "llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [GVN] same sequence of instructions in if and else branch And there's no PHI node after this that depends on the condition? -- Mats On 9 February 2016 at 19:30, Taewook Oh via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: Hello, I found that GVN doesn't promote identical sequence of instructions in if and else branch to their common predecessors. For example, for the following code snippet pred: … br i1 %cmp, label %if, label %else if: %incdec.ptr.1 = getelementptr inbounds i8, i8* %ptr, i64 1 %cast1 = ptrtoint i8* %incdec.ptr.1 to i64 … else: %incdec.ptr.2 = getelementptr inbounds i8, i8* %ptr, i64 1 %cast2 = ptrtoint i8* %incdec.ptr.2 to i64 GVN doesn't move instructions in 'if' and 'else' blocks to 'pred' block even though it knows that incdec.ptr.1/case1 has a same value number with incdec.ptr.2/cast2. I see a case where this kind of redundancy confuses following optimization passes and ends up generating suboptimal code.>From the GVN implementation, it seems that transformation is performed only when the "leader" value dominates the other value, so it cannot handle a case like the above example. I wonder if this is by design or just a missing feature.Thanks, Taewook _______________________________________________ LLVM Developers mailing list llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.llvm.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_llvm-2Ddev&d=CwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=kOsLCgQzH7N8ptZ7diJD9g&m=Xf5AAq_dBp5IcStlnft7nao-p-fDTN5AH6oItVXC3BA&s=4VUE3_dUQQ8AKzkWv5Tu6nJ979NtsOIq3qVC7CipHL8&e=> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160209/d1ca226d/attachment.html>
Jingyue Wu via llvm-dev
2016-Feb-09 20:02 UTC
[llvm-dev] [GVN] same sequence of instructions in if and else branch
I believe SimplifyCFG instead of GVN does that: http://llvm.org/docs/doxygen/html/SimplifyCFG_8cpp_source.html#l01080 On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Taewook Oh via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> Hello, > > > I found that GVN doesn't promote identical sequence of instructions in if > and else branch to their common predecessors. For example, for the > following code snippet > > > pred: > > … > > br i1 %cmp, label %if, label %else > > if: > > %incdec.ptr.1 = getelementptr inbounds i8, i8* %ptr, i64 1 > > %cast1 = ptrtoint i8* %incdec.ptr.1 to i64 > > … > > else: > > %incdec.ptr.2 = getelementptr inbounds i8, i8* %ptr, i64 1 > > %cast2 = ptrtoint i8* %incdec.ptr.2 to i64 > > > GVN doesn't move instructions in 'if' and 'else' blocks to 'pred' block > even though it knows that incdec.ptr.1/case1 has a same value number with > incdec.ptr.2/cast2. I see a case where this kind of redundancy confuses > following optimization passes and ends up generating suboptimal code. > > > From the GVN implementation, it seems that transformation is performed > only when the "leader" value dominates the other value, so it cannot handle > a case like the above example. I wonder if this is by design or just a > missing feature. > > > Thanks, > > Taewook > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160209/e08b6ff1/attachment.html>
Apparently Analagous Threads
- [GVN] same sequence of instructions in if and else branch
- [GVN] same sequence of instructions in if and else branch
- [LLVMdev] Problem with `as'
- [ThinLTO] assert(GS != DefinedGlobals.end()) failed in FunctionImport.cpp
- [ThinLTO] assert(GS != DefinedGlobals.end()) failed in FunctionImport.cpp