George Burgess IV
2015-Jan-23 01:46 UTC
[LLVMdev] question about enabling cfl-aa and collecting a57 numbers
Works for me On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote:> We should use graph edges, so we can do something better at set build time > :) > > > On Thu Jan 22 2015 at 5:20:46 PM George Burgess IV < > george.burgess.iv at gmail.com> wrote: > >> > Should we be added an edge from the inttoptr to all other pointer >> values? Is there a better way? >> >> We can add a special "Unknown" StratifiedAttr and query it before >> anything else, i.e: >> >> // in CFLAliasAnalysis::query, as the first potential return >> if (AttrsA[AttrUnknown] || AttrsB[AttrUnknown]) >> return MayAlias; >> >> The only *potential* issue with this approach would be that in the >> following code segment: >> >> void fn() { >> int *foo = (int*)rand(); >> int *bar = new int; >> int **baz = rand() ? &foo : &bar; >> int value = **baz; >> } >> >> The stratified sets would look like: >> {value} is below {foo, bar} is below {baz}. >> >> Potential issue: The sets {foo, bar} and {value} would be marked with the >> "Unknown" attribute, while {baz} would have no attributes. I can't >> immediately think of a case where {baz} lacking "Unknown" would be harmful, >> but if such a case exists, then we may need a different approach. >> >> George >> >> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 8:03 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: >> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> From: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin.org> >>> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> >>> Cc: "Jiangning Liu" <Jiangning.Liu at arm.com>, "George Burgess IV" < >>> george.burgess.iv at gmail.com>, "LLVM Developers >>> Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "Nick Lewycky" < >>> nlewycky at google.com> >>> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 3:48:25 PM >>> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] question about enabling cfl-aa and collecting >>> a57 numbers >>> >>> On Wed Jan 21 2015 at 12:30:50 PM Hal Finkel < hfinkel at anl.gov > >>> wrote: >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> > From: "Daniel Berlin" < dberlin at dberlin.org > >>> > To: "Hal Finkel" < hfinkel at anl.gov > >>> > Cc: "Jiangning Liu" < Jiangning.Liu at arm.com >, "George Burgess IV" >>> > < george.burgess.iv at gmail.com >, "LLVM Developers >>> > Mailing List" < llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu >, "Nick Lewycky" < >>> > nlewycky at google.com > >>> > Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 1:10:07 PM >>> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] question about enabling cfl-aa and >>> > collecting a57 numbers >>> > >>> > Updated testcases to have MayAlias/note issues as FIXME. >>> > >>> >>> Okay, thanks! This LGTM, but we should probably split the delegation >>> fixes from the others and commit as two separate patches (especially >>> because Ana noted some potential miscompiles caused by the other >>> improvements). >>> >>> >>> >>> I think she mentioned the miscompiles due to us returning >>> partialalias. But in any case, i 'm happy to, but just to note they >>> are all required to get the LICM issue fixed :) >>> >>> >>> Okay, please do that and commit them. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Regarding this: >>> >>> @@ -768,7 +774,10 @@ static Optional<StratifiedAttr> >>> valueToAttrIndex(Value *Val) { >>> return AttrGlobalIndex; >>> >>> if (auto *Arg = dyn_cast<Argument>(Val)) >>> - if (!Arg->hasNoAliasAttr()) >>> + // Only pointer arguments should have the argument attribute, >>> + // because things can't escape through scalars without us seeing a >>> + // cast, and thus, interaction with them doesn't matter. >>> + if (!Arg->hasNoAliasAttr() && Arg->getType()->isPointerTy()) >>> return argNumberToAttrIndex(Arg-> getArgNo()); >>> return NoneType(); >>> } >>> >>> when we do see the inttoptr case, we add an edge from the source to >>> the destination. >>> >>> >>> Correct. >>> >>> >>> If we've not noted potential aliasing of the non-pointer-typed >>> argument, then does this end up looking like a unique global? >>> >>> >>> >>> No. It will end up looking like something that points to nothing. >>> Even without this change, it will end up looking like something that >>> points to nothing, it will just have an attribute that says >>> "argument". :) >>> >>> >>> Okay, fair enough. >>> >>> >>> >>> You can come up with cases where even with this attribute set, it >>> will get the wrong answer. It just happens to have code that, >>> through luck, gets the right answer in a lot of cases: >>> >>> (That is this code: >>> >>> >>> if (AttrsA.any() && AttrsB.any()) >>> return AliasAnalysis::MayAlias; >>> ) >>> >>> >>> So there is a bug here, but it's not caused by this code. >>> >>> >>> The bug here is that we can't ever know what happens as the result of >>> inttoptr. We never do math, and the tracking we do is never going to >>> be sufficient to determine the range of possible pointers for an >>> inttoptr in all cases (in theory, it could point to anything >>> anywhere in the program. If we knew the sizes of *all* objects, and >>> any binary operator performed on it was evaluable, we could do a >>> little better. If we knew the value came from a ptrtoint, we could >>> do better, etc). >>> Same with ptrtoint. >>> >>> >>> The result of both of these instructions should start to be "we have >>> no idea what the pointer that comes from inttoptr or goes to >>> ptrtoint points to", and we should return mayalias for anything that >>> interacts with them. >>> We don't do that right now. >>> We are just hiding it mildly well. >>> >>> >>> Should we be added an edge from the inttoptr to all other pointer >>> values? Is there a better way? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Speaking of which, the code has checks for global variables in >>> several places. Do these need to be for globals that are not aliases >>> and don't have weak linkage? >>> >>> >>> >>> It's more a question of whether they are in SSA form than if they are >>> globals. >>> >>> >>> It's effectively using Globals/Arguments as a way to say "don't know" >>> in some cases, where it should really just say "don't know". >>> >>> >>> There is a bunch of code i now have marked for cleanup and bugfixes >>> around these issues (constant vs global handling, handling of >>> non-pointer values, etc). >>> >>> >>> Okay, thanks! >>> >>> >>> >>> As mentioned, the above is necessary to fix the LICM issue (and is >>> correct, even if somewhere else is wrong. For reference, GCC does >>> the identical thing to what i'm saying :P), but i'm happy to move it >>> to a separate fix (that includes fixes for the other >>> argument/unknown related issues) if you like. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Generically speaking, I'd prefer the fixes to be broken up as much as >>> practical. Please go ahead and commit them. >>> >>> -Hal >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks again, >>> Hal >>> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Tue Jan 20 2015 at 3:54:10 PM Hal Finkel < hfinkel at anl.gov > >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > ----- Original Message ----- >>> > > From: "Daniel Berlin" < dberlin at dberlin.org > >>> > > To: "Hal Finkel" < hfinkel at anl.gov > >>> > > Cc: "Jiangning Liu" < Jiangning.Liu at arm.com >, "George Burgess >>> > > IV" >>> > > < george.burgess.iv at gmail.com >, "LLVM Developers >>> > > Mailing List" < llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu >, "Nick Lewycky" < >>> > > nlewycky at google.com > >>> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:48:44 PM >>> > > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] question about enabling cfl-aa and >>> > > collecting a57 numbers >>> > > >>> > > So, I can make all these testcases work, but it's a little tricky >>> > > (it >>> > > involves tracking some things, like GEP byte range, and then >>> > > checking bases and using getObjectSize, much like BasicAA does). >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > Because i really don't want to put that much "not well tested" >>> > > code >>> > > in a bugfix, and honestly, i'm not sure we will catch any cases >>> > > here >>> > > that BasicAA does not, i've attached a change to XFAIL these >>> > > testcases, and updated the code to return MayAlias. >>> > >>> > Okay. I think you might as well just update the test cases to want >>> > MayAlias, and put a FIXME comment explaining that they could be >>> > PartialAlias. As far as I know, there is no code in LLVM that >>> > really >>> > handles a PartialAlias differently than a MayAlias or MustAlias, >>> > and >>> > so while there may be some benefit here, I'm not sure it will be >>> > worth the effort. >>> > >>> > > >>> > > I will build and test a patch to get these back to PartialAlias, >>> > > but >>> > > this patch will at least get us to not be "giving wrong answers". >>> > > I >>> > > will also see if we catch anything with it that BasicAA does not, >>> > > because if we don't, it doesn't seem worth it to me. >>> > >>> > My guess is that BasicAA will get almost all of the interesting >>> > PartialAlias cases, and as I said, we essentially ignore them >>> > anyway. >>> > >>> > As a side note, there is this one place in lib/Analysis/ >>> > MemoryDependenceAnalysis.cpp that could use some attention: >>> > >>> > #if 0 // FIXME: Temporarily disabled. GVN is cleverly rewriting >>> > loads >>> > // in terms of clobbering loads, but since it does this by looking >>> > // at the clobbering load directly, it doesn't know about any >>> > // phi translation that may have happened along the way. >>> > >>> > // If we have a partial alias, then return this as a clobber for >>> > the >>> > // client to handle. >>> > if (R == AliasAnalysis::PartialAlias) >>> > return MemDepResult::getClobber(Inst) ; >>> > #endif >>> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > Conservative new patch attached. >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > (Note that i still updated the testcases, because we will *never* >>> > > be >>> > > able to legally return PartialAlias as they were written) >>> > > >>> > >>> > Yes, sounds good. >>> > >>> > -Hal >>> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > On Sun Jan 18 2015 at 2:12:47 PM Daniel Berlin < >>> > > dberlin at dberlin.org >>> > > > wrote: >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > On Sat Jan 17 2015 at 3:15:27 PM Hal Finkel < hfinkel at anl.gov > >>> > > wrote: >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > ----- Original Message ----- >>> > > > From: "Daniel Berlin" < dberlin at dberlin.org > >>> > > > To: "Hal Finkel" < hfinkel at anl.gov > >>> > > > Cc: "Jiangning Liu" < Jiangning.Liu at arm.com >, "George Burgess >>> > > > IV" >>> > > > < george.burgess.iv at gmail.com >, "LLVM Developers >>> > > > Mailing List" < llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu >, "Nick Lewycky" < >>> > > > nlewycky at google.com > >>> > > > Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2015 1:08:10 PM >>> > > > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] question about enabling cfl-aa and >>> > > > collecting a57 numbers >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > On Sat Jan 17 2015 at 12:03:33 AM Hal Finkel < hfinkel at anl.gov >>> > > > > >>> > > > wrote: >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > Hi Danny, >>> > > > >>> > > > // Add TypeBasedAliasAnalysis before BasicAliasAnalysis so that >>> > > > // BasicAliasAnalysis wins if they disagree. This is intended >>> > > > to >>> > > > help >>> > > > // support "obvious" type-punning idioms. >>> > > > - if (UseCFLAA) >>> > > > - addPass( createCFLAliasAnalysisPass()); >>> > > > addPass( createTypeBasedAliasAnalysisPa ss()); >>> > > > addPass( createScopedNoAliasAAPass()); >>> > > > + if (UseCFLAA) >>> > > > + addPass( createCFLAliasAnalysisPass()); >>> > > > addPass( createBasicAliasAnalysisPass() ); >>> > > > >>> > > > Do we really want to change the order here? I had originally >>> > > > placed >>> > > > it after the metadata-based passes thinking that the >>> > > > compile-time >>> > > > would be better (guessing that the metadata queries would be >>> > > > faster >>> > > > than the CFL queries, so if the metadata could quickly return a >>> > > > NoAlias, then we'd cut out unecessary CFL queries). Perhaps >>> > > > this >>> > > > is >>> > > > an irrelevant effect, but we should have some documented >>> > > > rationale. >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > Yeah, this was a mistake (Chandler had suggested it was right >>> > > > earlier, but we were both wrong :P) >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > ; CHECK: PartialAlias: i16* %bigbase0, i8* %phi >>> > > > -define i8 @test0(i8* %base, i1 %x) { >>> > > > +define i8 @test0(i1 %x) { >>> > > > entry: >>> > > > + %base = alloca i8, align 4 >>> > > > %baseplusone = getelementptr i8* %base, i64 1 >>> > > > br i1 %x, label %red, label %green >>> > > > red: >>> > > > @@ -25,8 +26,9 @@ green: >>> > > > } >>> > > > >>> > > > why should this return PartialAlias? %ohi does partially >>> > > > overlap, >>> > > > so >>> > > > this correct, but what happens when the overlap is partial or >>> > > > control dependent? >>> > > > So, after talking with some people offline, they convinced me >>> > > > in >>> > > > SSA >>> > > > form, the name would change in these situations, and the only >>> > > > situations you can get into trouble is with things "based on >>> > > > pointer >>> > > > arguments" (because you have no idea what their initial state >>> > > > is), >>> > > > or "globals" (because they are not in SSA form) >>> > > > I could not come up with a case otherwise >>> > > >>> > > Okay; that part of the code could really use some more >>> > > commentary. >>> > > I'd really appreciate it if you should put these thoughts in >>> > > written >>> > > form that could be added as comments. >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > Will do >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > > But i'm welcome to hear if you think this is wrong. >>> > > > >>> > > > FWIW: I bootstrapped/tested the compiler with an assert that >>> > > > triggered if CFL-AA was going to return PartialAlias and >>> > > > BasicAA >>> > > > would have returned NoAlias, and it did not trigger with this >>> > > > change. >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > (It would have triggered before this set of changes) >>> > > > >>> > > > Not proof of course, but it at least tells me it's not >>> > > > "obviously >>> > > > wrong" :) >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > > That's good :) -- but, not exactly what I was concerned about. >>> > > Our >>> > > general convention has been that PartialAlias is a "strong" >>> > > result, >>> > > like MustAlias, but implies that AA has proved that only a >>> > > partial >>> > > overlap will occur. >>> > > >>> > > So, in this test case we get the right result: >>> > > >>> > > ; CHECK: PartialAlias: i16* %bigbase0, i8* %phi >>> > > define i8 @test0(i1 %x) { >>> > > entry: >>> > > %base = alloca i8, align 4 >>> > > %baseplusone = getelementptr i8* %base, i64 1 >>> > > br i1 %x, label %red, label %green >>> > > red: >>> > > br label %green >>> > > green: >>> > > %phi = phi i8* [ %baseplusone, %red ], [ %base, %entry ] >>> > > store i8 0, i8* %phi >>> > > >>> > > %bigbase0 = bitcast i8* %base to i16* >>> > > store i16 -1, i16* %bigbase0 >>> > > >>> > > %loaded = load i8* %phi >>> > > ret i8 %loaded >>> > > } >>> > > >>> > > because %phi will have a partial overlap with %bigbase0, the only >>> > > uncertainty is whether the overlap is with the low byte or the >>> > > high >>> > > byte. But if I modify the test to be this: >>> > > >>> > > define i8 @test0x(i1 %x) { >>> > > entry: >>> > > %base = alloca i8, align 4 >>> > > %baseplustwo = getelementptr i8* %base, i64 2 >>> > > br i1 %x, label %red, label %green >>> > > red: >>> > > br label %green >>> > > green: >>> > > %phi = phi i8* [ %baseplustwo, %red ], [ %base, %entry ] >>> > > store i8 0, i8* %phi >>> > > >>> > > %bigbase0 = bitcast i8* %base to i16* >>> > > store i16 -1, i16* %bigbase0 >>> > > >>> > > %loaded = load i8* %phi >>> > > ret i8 %loaded >>> > > } >>> > > >>> > > I still get this result: >>> > > PartialAlias: i16* %bigbase0, i8* %phi >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > but now %phi might not overlap %bigbase0 at all (although, when >>> > > it >>> > > does, there is a partial overlap), so we should just return >>> > > MayAlias >>> > > (perhaps without delegation because this is a definitive >>> > > result?). >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > Yeah, i have to do some size checking, let me see if we have the >>> > > info >>> > > and i'll update the patch. >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > Otherwise, my view is that we should always delegate MayAlias, >>> > > because we have no idea what order the passes are in or what pass >>> > > someone has inserted where :) >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > (WIW: I believe the same about everything except MustAlias and >>> > > NoAlias, but currently we don't delegate PartialAlias. >>> > > We claim PartialAlias is a definitive result, but it really >>> > > isn't. >>> > > Right now we have TBAA that will give NoAlias results on things >>> > > other >>> > > passes claim are PartialAlias, and that result is correct. That's >>> > > just in our default, we have no idea what other people do. Even >>> > > if >>> > > you ignore TBAA, plenty of other compilers have noalias/mustalias >>> > > metadata that would have the same effect. >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Hal Finkel >>> > Assistant Computational Scientist >>> > Leadership Computing Facility >>> > Argonne National Laboratory >>> > >>> >>> -- >>> Hal Finkel >>> Assistant Computational Scientist >>> Leadership Computing Facility >>> Argonne National Laboratory >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> Hal Finkel >>> Assistant Computational Scientist >>> Leadership Computing Facility >>> Argonne National Laboratory >>> >> >>-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150122/c6d82b4e/attachment.html>
Ana Pazos
2015-Jan-23 20:51 UTC
[LLVMdev] question about enabling cfl-aa and collecting a57 numbers
Hi Daniel, There are correctness issues with the latest patch (from Wed 1/21/2015 11:10 AM with “Updated testcases to have MayAlias/note issues as FIXME”). I looked at one of the failures and it has to do with disambiguating array indexes. With CFL AA enabled, LICM promotion is sinking stores outside of the loop incorrectly. If I disable LICM promotion, the tests pass. Find attached a reduced test case. clang -c --target=aarch64-linux-gnu -mcpu=cortex-a57 -Ofast -mllvm -use-cfl-aa -S test2.c -o test2out -mllvm -debug-only=licm LICM: Promoting value stored to in loop: i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 1) LICM: Promoting value stored to in loop: i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 2) LICM: Promoting value stored to in loop: i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 3) LICM: Promoting value stored to in loop: i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 4) LICM: Promoting value stored to in loop: i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 5) LICM: Promoting value stored to in loop: i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 6) LICM: Promoting value stored to in loop: i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 7) LICM: Promoting value stored to in loop: i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 8) LICM: Promoting value stored to in loop: i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 9) LICM: Promoting value stored to in loop: i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 10) LICM: Promoting value stored to in loop: i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 11) LICM: Promoting value stored to in loop: i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 12) LICM: Promoting value stored to in loop: i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 13) LICM: Promoting value stored to in loop: i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 14) LICM: Promoting value stored to in loop: i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 15) LICM sinking instruction: %conv32 = trunc i32 %add31 to i16 LICM sinking instruction: %add31 = sub nsw i32 %conv18, %conv17 LICM sinking instruction: %conv22 = trunc i32 %sub to i16 LICM sinking instruction: %sub = sub nsw i32 %conv17, %conv18 LICM sinking instruction: %conv19 = trunc i32 %add to i16 clang -c --target=aarch64-linux-gnu -mcpu=cortex-a57 -Ofast -mllvm –use-cfl-aa -S test2.c -o test2out -mllvm -debug-only=licm -mllvm -disable-licm-promotion ok If you look at the .ll file, you notice that pointer p alias with pA: %p.0 = phi i16* [ getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 0), %for.body ], [ %incdec.ptr49, %for.body48 ] … for.body48: ; preds = %for.cond45 %incdec.ptr49 = getelementptr inbounds i16* %p.0, i64 1 CFL AA disambiguates p, pA[0], but not the other indexes (coming from incdec.ptr49 updates): MayAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 %conv27, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 0), align 2, !tbaa !1 NoAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 %conv22, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 1), align 2, !tbaa !1 NoAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 %conv32, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 2), align 2, !tbaa !1 NoAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 %conv19, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 3), align 2, !tbaa !1 NoAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 %conv19, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 4), align 2, !tbaa !1 NoAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 %conv32, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 5), align 2, !tbaa !1 NoAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 %conv22, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 6), align 2, !tbaa !1 NoAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 %conv27, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 7), align 2, !tbaa !1 NoAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 %conv32, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 8), align 2, !tbaa !1 NoAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 %conv19, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 9), align 2, !tbaa !1 NoAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 %conv27, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 10), align 2, !tbaa !1 NoAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 %conv22, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 11), align 2, !tbaa !1 NoAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 %conv22, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 12), align 2, !tbaa !1 NoAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 %conv27, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 13), align 2, !tbaa !1 NoAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 %conv19, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 14), align 2, !tbaa !1 NoAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 %conv32, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 15), align 2, !tbaa !1 Basic AA disambiguates them all: opt -basicaa -aa-eval -evaluate-aa-metadata -print-no-aliases -print-may-aliases -disable-output test2.ll MayAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 %conv27, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 0), align 2, !tbaa !1 MayAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 %conv22, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 1), align 2, !tbaa !1 MayAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 %conv32, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 2), align 2, !tbaa !1 MayAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 %conv19, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 3), align 2, !tbaa !1 MayAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 %conv19, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 4), align 2, !tbaa !1 MayAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 %conv32, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 5), align 2, !tbaa !1 MayAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 %conv22, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 6), align 2, !tbaa !1 MayAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 %conv27, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 7), align 2, !tbaa !1 MayAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 %conv32, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 8), align 2, !tbaa !1 MayAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 %conv19, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 9), align 2, !tbaa !1 MayAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 %conv27, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 10), align 2, !tbaa !1 MayAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 %conv22, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 11), align 2, !tbaa !1 MayAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 %conv22, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 12), align 2, !tbaa !1 MayAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 %conv27, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 13), align 2, !tbaa !1 MayAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 %conv19, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 14), align 2, !tbaa !1 MayAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 %conv32, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 15), align 2, !tbaa !1 Thanks, Ana. From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of George Burgess IV Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 5:47 PM To: Daniel Berlin Cc: Jiangning Liu; LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] question about enabling cfl-aa and collecting a57 numbers Works for me On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org <mailto:dberlin at dberlin.org> > wrote: We should use graph edges, so we can do something better at set build time :) On Thu Jan 22 2015 at 5:20:46 PM George Burgess IV <george.burgess.iv at gmail.com <mailto:george.burgess.iv at gmail.com> > wrote:> Should we be added an edge from the inttoptr to all other pointer values? Is there a better way?We can add a special "Unknown" StratifiedAttr and query it before anything else, i.e: // in CFLAliasAnalysis::query, as the first potential return if (AttrsA[AttrUnknown] || AttrsB[AttrUnknown]) return MayAlias; The only *potential* issue with this approach would be that in the following code segment: void fn() { int *foo = (int*)rand(); int *bar = new int; int **baz = rand() ? &foo : &bar; int value = **baz; } The stratified sets would look like: {value} is below {foo, bar} is below {baz}. Potential issue: The sets {foo, bar} and {value} would be marked with the "Unknown" attribute, while {baz} would have no attributes. I can't immediately think of a case where {baz} lacking "Unknown" would be harmful, but if such a case exists, then we may need a different approach. George On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 8:03 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov <mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov> > wrote: _____ From: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin.org <mailto:dberlin at dberlin.org> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov <mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "Jiangning Liu" <Jiangning.Liu at arm.com <mailto:Jiangning.Liu at arm.com> >, "George Burgess IV" <george.burgess.iv at gmail.com <mailto:george.burgess.iv at gmail.com> >, "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> >, "Nick Lewycky" <nlewycky at google.com <mailto:nlewycky at google.com> > Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 3:48:25 PM Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] question about enabling cfl-aa and collecting a57 numbers On Wed Jan 21 2015 at 12:30:50 PM Hal Finkel < hfinkel at anl.gov <mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov> > wrote: ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Daniel Berlin" < dberlin at dberlin.org <mailto:dberlin at dberlin.org> > > To: "Hal Finkel" < hfinkel at anl.gov <mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov> > > Cc: "Jiangning Liu" < Jiangning.Liu at arm.com <mailto:Jiangning.Liu at arm.com> >, "George Burgess IV" > < george.burgess.iv at gmail.com <mailto:george.burgess.iv at gmail.com> >, "LLVM Developers > Mailing List" < llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> >, "Nick Lewycky" < > nlewycky at google.com <mailto:nlewycky at google.com> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 1:10:07 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] question about enabling cfl-aa and > collecting a57 numbers > > Updated testcases to have MayAlias/note issues as FIXME. > Okay, thanks! This LGTM, but we should probably split the delegation fixes from the others and commit as two separate patches (especially because Ana noted some potential miscompiles caused by the other improvements). I think she mentioned the miscompiles due to us returning partialalias. But in any case, i 'm happy to, but just to note they are all required to get the LICM issue fixed :) Okay, please do that and commit them. Regarding this: @@ -768,7 +774,10 @@ static Optional<StratifiedAttr> valueToAttrIndex(Value *Val) { return AttrGlobalIndex; if (auto *Arg = dyn_cast<Argument>(Val)) - if (!Arg->hasNoAliasAttr()) + // Only pointer arguments should have the argument attribute, + // because things can't escape through scalars without us seeing a + // cast, and thus, interaction with them doesn't matter. + if (!Arg->hasNoAliasAttr() && Arg->getType()->isPointerTy()) return argNumberToAttrIndex(Arg-> getArgNo()); return NoneType(); } when we do see the inttoptr case, we add an edge from the source to the destination. Correct. If we've not noted potential aliasing of the non-pointer-typed argument, then does this end up looking like a unique global? No. It will end up looking like something that points to nothing. Even without this change, it will end up looking like something that points to nothing, it will just have an attribute that says "argument". :) Okay, fair enough. You can come up with cases where even with this attribute set, it will get the wrong answer. It just happens to have code that, through luck, gets the right answer in a lot of cases: (That is this code: if (AttrsA.any() && AttrsB.any()) return AliasAnalysis::MayAlias; ) So there is a bug here, but it's not caused by this code. The bug here is that we can't ever know what happens as the result of inttoptr. We never do math, and the tracking we do is never going to be sufficient to determine the range of possible pointers for an inttoptr in all cases (in theory, it could point to anything anywhere in the program. If we knew the sizes of *all* objects, and any binary operator performed on it was evaluable, we could do a little better. If we knew the value came from a ptrtoint, we could do better, etc). Same with ptrtoint. The result of both of these instructions should start to be "we have no idea what the pointer that comes from inttoptr or goes to ptrtoint points to", and we should return mayalias for anything that interacts with them. We don't do that right now. We are just hiding it mildly well. Should we be added an edge from the inttoptr to all other pointer values? Is there a better way? Speaking of which, the code has checks for global variables in several places. Do these need to be for globals that are not aliases and don't have weak linkage? It's more a question of whether they are in SSA form than if they are globals. It's effectively using Globals/Arguments as a way to say "don't know" in some cases, where it should really just say "don't know". There is a bunch of code i now have marked for cleanup and bugfixes around these issues (constant vs global handling, handling of non-pointer values, etc). Okay, thanks! As mentioned, the above is necessary to fix the LICM issue (and is correct, even if somewhere else is wrong. For reference, GCC does the identical thing to what i'm saying :P), but i'm happy to move it to a separate fix (that includes fixes for the other argument/unknown related issues) if you like. Generically speaking, I'd prefer the fixes to be broken up as much as practical. Please go ahead and commit them. -Hal Thanks again, Hal > > > > > On Tue Jan 20 2015 at 3:54:10 PM Hal Finkel < hfinkel at anl.gov <mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov> > > wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Daniel Berlin" < dberlin at dberlin.org <mailto:dberlin at dberlin.org> > > > To: "Hal Finkel" < hfinkel at anl.gov <mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov> > > > Cc: "Jiangning Liu" < Jiangning.Liu at arm.com <mailto:Jiangning.Liu at arm.com> >, "George Burgess > > IV" > > < george.burgess.iv at gmail.com <mailto:george.burgess.iv at gmail.com> >, "LLVM Developers > > Mailing List" < llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> >, "Nick Lewycky" < > > nlewycky at google.com <mailto:nlewycky at google.com> > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:48:44 PM > > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] question about enabling cfl-aa and > > collecting a57 numbers > > > > So, I can make all these testcases work, but it's a little tricky > > (it > > involves tracking some things, like GEP byte range, and then > > checking bases and using getObjectSize, much like BasicAA does). > > > > > > Because i really don't want to put that much "not well tested" > > code > > in a bugfix, and honestly, i'm not sure we will catch any cases > > here > > that BasicAA does not, i've attached a change to XFAIL these > > testcases, and updated the code to return MayAlias. > > Okay. I think you might as well just update the test cases to want > MayAlias, and put a FIXME comment explaining that they could be > PartialAlias. As far as I know, there is no code in LLVM that > really > handles a PartialAlias differently than a MayAlias or MustAlias, > and > so while there may be some benefit here, I'm not sure it will be > worth the effort. > > > > > I will build and test a patch to get these back to PartialAlias, > > but > > this patch will at least get us to not be "giving wrong answers". > > I > > will also see if we catch anything with it that BasicAA does not, > > because if we don't, it doesn't seem worth it to me. > > My guess is that BasicAA will get almost all of the interesting > PartialAlias cases, and as I said, we essentially ignore them > anyway. > > As a side note, there is this one place in lib/Analysis/ > MemoryDependenceAnalysis.cpp that could use some attention: > > #if 0 // FIXME: Temporarily disabled. GVN is cleverly rewriting > loads > // in terms of clobbering loads, but since it does this by looking > // at the clobbering load directly, it doesn't know about any > // phi translation that may have happened along the way. > > // If we have a partial alias, then return this as a clobber for > the > // client to handle. > if (R == AliasAnalysis::PartialAlias) > return MemDepResult::getClobber(Inst) ; > #endif > > > > > > > Conservative new patch attached. > > > > > > > > (Note that i still updated the testcases, because we will *never* > > be > > able to legally return PartialAlias as they were written) > > > > Yes, sounds good. > > -Hal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun Jan 18 2015 at 2:12:47 PM Daniel Berlin < > > dberlin at dberlin.org <mailto:dberlin at dberlin.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sat Jan 17 2015 at 3:15:27 PM Hal Finkel < hfinkel at anl.gov <mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov> > > > wrote: > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Daniel Berlin" < dberlin at dberlin.org <mailto:dberlin at dberlin.org> > > > > To: "Hal Finkel" < hfinkel at anl.gov <mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov> > > > > Cc: "Jiangning Liu" < Jiangning.Liu at arm.com <mailto:Jiangning.Liu at arm.com> >, "George Burgess > > > IV" > > > < george.burgess.iv at gmail.com <mailto:george.burgess.iv at gmail.com> >, "LLVM Developers > > > Mailing List" < llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> >, "Nick Lewycky" < > > > nlewycky at google.com <mailto:nlewycky at google.com> > > > > Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2015 1:08:10 PM > > > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] question about enabling cfl-aa and > > > collecting a57 numbers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat Jan 17 2015 at 12:03:33 AM Hal Finkel < hfinkel at anl.gov <mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Danny, > > > > > > // Add TypeBasedAliasAnalysis before BasicAliasAnalysis so that > > > // BasicAliasAnalysis wins if they disagree. This is intended > > > to > > > help > > > // support "obvious" type-punning idioms. > > > - if (UseCFLAA) > > > - addPass( createCFLAliasAnalysisPass()); > > > addPass( createTypeBasedAliasAnalysisPa ss()); > > > addPass( createScopedNoAliasAAPass()); > > > + if (UseCFLAA) > > > + addPass( createCFLAliasAnalysisPass()); > > > addPass( createBasicAliasAnalysisPass() ); > > > > > > Do we really want to change the order here? I had originally > > > placed > > > it after the metadata-based passes thinking that the > > > compile-time > > > would be better (guessing that the metadata queries would be > > > faster > > > than the CFL queries, so if the metadata could quickly return a > > > NoAlias, then we'd cut out unecessary CFL queries). Perhaps > > > this > > > is > > > an irrelevant effect, but we should have some documented > > > rationale. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, this was a mistake (Chandler had suggested it was right > > > earlier, but we were both wrong :P) > > > > > > > > > > > > ; CHECK: PartialAlias: i16* %bigbase0, i8* %phi > > > -define i8 @test0(i8* %base, i1 %x) { > > > +define i8 @test0(i1 %x) { > > > entry: > > > + %base = alloca i8, align 4 > > > %baseplusone = getelementptr i8* %base, i64 1 > > > br i1 %x, label %red, label %green > > > red: > > > @@ -25,8 +26,9 @@ green: > > > } > > > > > > why should this return PartialAlias? %ohi does partially > > > overlap, > > > so > > > this correct, but what happens when the overlap is partial or > > > control dependent? > > > So, after talking with some people offline, they convinced me > > > in > > > SSA > > > form, the name would change in these situations, and the only > > > situations you can get into trouble is with things "based on > > > pointer > > > arguments" (because you have no idea what their initial state > > > is), > > > or "globals" (because they are not in SSA form) > > > I could not come up with a case otherwise > > > > Okay; that part of the code could really use some more > > commentary. > > I'd really appreciate it if you should put these thoughts in > > written > > form that could be added as comments. > > > > > > > > > > > > Will do > > > > > > > > > But i'm welcome to hear if you think this is wrong. > > > > > > FWIW: I bootstrapped/tested the compiler with an assert that > > > triggered if CFL-AA was going to return PartialAlias and > > > BasicAA > > > would have returned NoAlias, and it did not trigger with this > > > change. > > > > > > > > > (It would have triggered before this set of changes) > > > > > > Not proof of course, but it at least tells me it's not > > > "obviously > > > wrong" :) > > > > > > > > > > That's good :) -- but, not exactly what I was concerned about. > > Our > > general convention has been that PartialAlias is a "strong" > > result, > > like MustAlias, but implies that AA has proved that only a > > partial > > overlap will occur. > > > > So, in this test case we get the right result: > > > > ; CHECK: PartialAlias: i16* %bigbase0, i8* %phi > > define i8 @test0(i1 %x) { > > entry: > > %base = alloca i8, align 4 > > %baseplusone = getelementptr i8* %base, i64 1 > > br i1 %x, label %red, label %green > > red: > > br label %green > > green: > > %phi = phi i8* [ %baseplusone, %red ], [ %base, %entry ] > > store i8 0, i8* %phi > > > > %bigbase0 = bitcast i8* %base to i16* > > store i16 -1, i16* %bigbase0 > > > > %loaded = load i8* %phi > > ret i8 %loaded > > } > > > > because %phi will have a partial overlap with %bigbase0, the only > > uncertainty is whether the overlap is with the low byte or the > > high > > byte. But if I modify the test to be this: > > > > define i8 @test0x(i1 %x) { > > entry: > > %base = alloca i8, align 4 > > %baseplustwo = getelementptr i8* %base, i64 2 > > br i1 %x, label %red, label %green > > red: > > br label %green > > green: > > %phi = phi i8* [ %baseplustwo, %red ], [ %base, %entry ] > > store i8 0, i8* %phi > > > > %bigbase0 = bitcast i8* %base to i16* > > store i16 -1, i16* %bigbase0 > > > > %loaded = load i8* %phi > > ret i8 %loaded > > } > > > > I still get this result: > > PartialAlias: i16* %bigbase0, i8* %phi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but now %phi might not overlap %bigbase0 at all (although, when > > it > > does, there is a partial overlap), so we should just return > > MayAlias > > (perhaps without delegation because this is a definitive > > result?). > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, i have to do some size checking, let me see if we have the > > info > > and i'll update the patch. > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, my view is that we should always delegate MayAlias, > > because we have no idea what order the passes are in or what pass > > someone has inserted where :) > > > > > > (WIW: I believe the same about everything except MustAlias and > > NoAlias, but currently we don't delegate PartialAlias. > > We claim PartialAlias is a definitive result, but it really > > isn't. > > Right now we have TBAA that will give NoAlias results on things > > other > > passes claim are PartialAlias, and that result is correct. That's > > just in our default, we have no idea what other people do. Even > > if > > you ignore TBAA, plenty of other compilers have noalias/mustalias > > metadata that would have the same effect. > > -- > Hal Finkel > Assistant Computational Scientist > Leadership Computing Facility > Argonne National Laboratory > -- Hal Finkel Assistant Computational Scientist Leadership Computing Facility Argonne National Laboratory -- Hal Finkel Assistant Computational Scientist Leadership Computing Facility Argonne National Laboratory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150123/716f1852/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: test2.c Type: application/octet-stream Size: 779 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150123/716f1852/attachment.obj> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: test2.ll Type: application/octet-stream Size: 4990 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150123/716f1852/attachment-0001.obj>
Daniel Berlin
2015-Jan-23 23:09 UTC
[LLVMdev] question about enabling cfl-aa and collecting a57 numbers
Without the patch is also returns the wrong answer for all of these, it just doesn't cause LICM to promote because it returns PartialAlias (which is still wrong). We return may-alias instead, and now suddenly it's happy to promote them. The broken noalias results exist both before and after my patch: ===== Alias Analysis Evaluator Report ==== 521 Total Alias Queries Performed 176 no alias responses (33.7%) - 334 may alias responses (64.1%) - 10 partial alias responses (1.9%) + 344 may alias responses (66.0%) + 0 partial alias responses (0.0%) 1 must alias responses (0.1%) I suspect this is all caused by a different set of bugs: 1. visitStoreInst does not appear to handle the case of value being a GEP properly (Personally, i had no idea this was allowed ...) It should somehow call into the visitGEP code, but it doesn't. Thus, it never assigns anything into the value of the global. 2. Something is either busted in querying or in attributes for stores that have geps directly as their pointer value. I will work up a separate patch for this issue unless someone thinks i should shoehorn it into the existing patch. On Fri Jan 23 2015 at 12:52:02 PM Ana Pazos <apazos at codeaurora.org> wrote:> Hi Daniel, > > > > There are correctness issues with the latest patch (from Wed 1/21/2015 > 11:10 AM with “Updated testcases to have MayAlias/note issues as FIXME”). > > > > I looked at one of the failures and it has to do with disambiguating array > indexes. > > > > With CFL AA enabled, LICM promotion is sinking stores outside of the loop > incorrectly. If I disable LICM promotion, the tests pass. > > > > Find attached a reduced test case. > > > > clang -c --target=aarch64-linux-gnu -mcpu=cortex-a57 -Ofast -mllvm > -use-cfl-aa -S test2.c -o test2out -mllvm -debug-only=licm > > LICM: Promoting value stored to in loop: i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 > x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 1) > > LICM: Promoting value stored to in loop: i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 > x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 2) > > LICM: Promoting value stored to in loop: i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 > x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 3) > > LICM: Promoting value stored to in loop: i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 > x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 4) > > LICM: Promoting value stored to in loop: i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 > x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 5) > > LICM: Promoting value stored to in loop: i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 > x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 6) > > LICM: Promoting value stored to in loop: i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 > x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 7) > > LICM: Promoting value stored to in loop: i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 > x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 8) > > LICM: Promoting value stored to in loop: i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 > x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 9) > > LICM: Promoting value stored to in loop: i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 > x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 10) > > LICM: Promoting value stored to in loop: i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 > x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 11) > > LICM: Promoting value stored to in loop: i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 > x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 12) > > LICM: Promoting value stored to in loop: i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 > x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 13) > > LICM: Promoting value stored to in loop: i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 > x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 14) > > LICM: Promoting value stored to in loop: i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 > x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 15) > > LICM sinking instruction: %conv32 = trunc i32 %add31 to i16 > > LICM sinking instruction: %add31 = sub nsw i32 %conv18, %conv17 > > LICM sinking instruction: %conv22 = trunc i32 %sub to i16 > > LICM sinking instruction: %sub = sub nsw i32 %conv17, %conv18 > > LICM sinking instruction: %conv19 = trunc i32 %add to i16 > > > > clang -c --target=aarch64-linux-gnu -mcpu=cortex-a57 -Ofast -mllvm > –use-cfl-aa -S test2.c -o test2out -mllvm -debug-only=licm -mllvm > -disable-licm-promotion > > ok > > > > If you look at the .ll file, you notice that pointer p alias with pA: > > > > %p.0 = phi i16* [ getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 0), > %for.body ], [ %incdec.ptr49, %for.body48 ] > > … > > for.body48: ; preds = %for.cond45 > > %incdec.ptr49 = getelementptr inbounds i16* %p.0, i64 1 > > > > CFL AA disambiguates p, pA[0], but not the other indexes (coming from > incdec.ptr49 updates): > > MayAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 > %conv27, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 0), align > 2, !tbaa !1 > > NoAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 > %conv22, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 1), align > 2, !tbaa !1 > > NoAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 > %conv32, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 2), align > 2, !tbaa !1 > > NoAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 > %conv19, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 3), align > 2, !tbaa !1 > > NoAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 > %conv19, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 4), align > 2, !tbaa !1 > > NoAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 > %conv32, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 5), align > 2, !tbaa !1 > > NoAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 > %conv22, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 6), align > 2, !tbaa !1 > > NoAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 > %conv27, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 7), align > 2, !tbaa !1 > > NoAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 > %conv32, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 8), align > 2, !tbaa !1 > > NoAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 > %conv19, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 9), align > 2, !tbaa !1 > > NoAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 > %conv27, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 10), > align 2, !tbaa !1 > > NoAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 > %conv22, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 11), > align 2, !tbaa !1 > > NoAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 > %conv22, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 12), > align 2, !tbaa !1 > > NoAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 > %conv27, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 13), > align 2, !tbaa !1 > > NoAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 > %conv19, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 14), > align 2, !tbaa !1 > > NoAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 > %conv32, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 15), > align 2, !tbaa !1 > > > > Basic AA disambiguates them all: > > opt -basicaa -aa-eval -evaluate-aa-metadata -print-no-aliases > -print-may-aliases -disable-output test2.ll > > MayAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 > %conv27, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 0), align > 2, !tbaa !1 > > MayAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 > %conv22, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 1), align > 2, !tbaa !1 > > MayAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 > %conv32, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 2), align > 2, !tbaa !1 > > MayAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 > %conv19, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 3), align > 2, !tbaa !1 > > MayAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 > %conv19, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 4), align > 2, !tbaa !1 > > MayAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 > %conv32, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 5), align > 2, !tbaa !1 > > MayAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 > %conv22, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 6), align > 2, !tbaa !1 > > MayAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 > %conv27, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 7), align > 2, !tbaa !1 > > MayAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 > %conv32, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 8), align > 2, !tbaa !1 > > MayAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 > %conv19, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 9), align > 2, !tbaa !1 > > MayAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 > %conv27, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 10), > align 2, !tbaa !1 > > MayAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 > %conv22, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 11), > align 2, !tbaa !1 > > MayAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 > %conv22, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 12), > align 2, !tbaa !1 > > MayAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 > %conv27, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 13), > align 2, !tbaa !1 > > MayAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 > %conv19, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 14), > align 2, !tbaa !1 > > MayAlias: %3 = load i16* %p.0, align 2, !tbaa !1 <-> store i16 > %conv32, i16* getelementptr inbounds ([16 x i16]* @pA, i64 0, i64 15), > align 2, !tbaa !1 > > > > Thanks, > > Ana. > > > > > > *From:* llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] *On > Behalf Of *George Burgess IV > *Sent:* Thursday, January 22, 2015 5:47 PM > *To:* Daniel Berlin > *Cc:* Jiangning Liu; LLVM Developers Mailing List > > > *Subject:* Re: [LLVMdev] question about enabling cfl-aa and collecting > a57 numbers > > > > Works for me > > > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> > wrote: > > We should use graph edges, so we can do something better at set build time > :) > > > > On Thu Jan 22 2015 at 5:20:46 PM George Burgess IV < > george.burgess.iv at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Should we be added an edge from the inttoptr to all other pointer > values? Is there a better way? > > > > We can add a special "Unknown" StratifiedAttr and query it before anything > else, i.e: > > > > // in CFLAliasAnalysis::query, as the first potential return > > if (AttrsA[AttrUnknown] || AttrsB[AttrUnknown]) > > return MayAlias; > > > > The only *potential* issue with this approach would be that in the > following code segment: > > > > void fn() { > > int *foo = (int*)rand(); > > int *bar = new int; > > int **baz = rand() ? &foo : &bar; > > int value = **baz; > > } > > > > The stratified sets would look like: > > {value} is below {foo, bar} is below {baz}. > > > > Potential issue: The sets {foo, bar} and {value} would be marked with the > "Unknown" attribute, while {baz} would have no attributes. I can't > immediately think of a case where {baz} lacking "Unknown" would be harmful, > but if such a case exists, then we may need a different approach. > > > > George > > > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 8:03 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > ------------------------------ > > > > From: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin.org> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "Jiangning Liu" <Jiangning.Liu at arm.com>, "George Burgess IV" < > george.burgess.iv at gmail.com>, "LLVM Developers > Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "Nick Lewycky" <nlewycky at google.com> > Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 3:48:25 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] question about enabling cfl-aa and collecting a57 > numbers > > On Wed Jan 21 2015 at 12:30:50 PM Hal Finkel < hfinkel at anl.gov > > wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Daniel Berlin" < dberlin at dberlin.org > > > To: "Hal Finkel" < hfinkel at anl.gov > > > Cc: "Jiangning Liu" < Jiangning.Liu at arm.com >, "George Burgess IV" > > < george.burgess.iv at gmail.com >, "LLVM Developers > > Mailing List" < llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu >, "Nick Lewycky" < > > nlewycky at google.com > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 1:10:07 PM > > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] question about enabling cfl-aa and > > collecting a57 numbers > > > > Updated testcases to have MayAlias/note issues as FIXME. > > > > Okay, thanks! This LGTM, but we should probably split the delegation > fixes from the others and commit as two separate patches (especially > because Ana noted some potential miscompiles caused by the other > improvements). > > > > I think she mentioned the miscompiles due to us returning > partialalias. But in any case, i 'm happy to, but just to note they > are all required to get the LICM issue fixed :) > > > Okay, please do that and commit them. > > > > > Regarding this: > > @@ -768,7 +774,10 @@ static Optional<StratifiedAttr> > valueToAttrIndex(Value *Val) { > return AttrGlobalIndex; > > if (auto *Arg = dyn_cast<Argument>(Val)) > - if (!Arg->hasNoAliasAttr()) > + // Only pointer arguments should have the argument attribute, > + // because things can't escape through scalars without us seeing a > + // cast, and thus, interaction with them doesn't matter. > + if (!Arg->hasNoAliasAttr() && Arg->getType()->isPointerTy()) > return argNumberToAttrIndex(Arg-> getArgNo()); > return NoneType(); > } > > when we do see the inttoptr case, we add an edge from the source to > the destination. > > > Correct. > > > If we've not noted potential aliasing of the non-pointer-typed > argument, then does this end up looking like a unique global? > > > > No. It will end up looking like something that points to nothing. > Even without this change, it will end up looking like something that > points to nothing, it will just have an attribute that says > "argument". :) > > > Okay, fair enough. > > > > You can come up with cases where even with this attribute set, it > will get the wrong answer. It just happens to have code that, > through luck, gets the right answer in a lot of cases: > > (That is this code: > > > if (AttrsA.any() && AttrsB.any()) > return AliasAnalysis::MayAlias; > ) > > > So there is a bug here, but it's not caused by this code. > > > The bug here is that we can't ever know what happens as the result of > inttoptr. We never do math, and the tracking we do is never going to > be sufficient to determine the range of possible pointers for an > inttoptr in all cases (in theory, it could point to anything > anywhere in the program. If we knew the sizes of *all* objects, and > any binary operator performed on it was evaluable, we could do a > little better. If we knew the value came from a ptrtoint, we could > do better, etc). > Same with ptrtoint. > > > The result of both of these instructions should start to be "we have > no idea what the pointer that comes from inttoptr or goes to > ptrtoint points to", and we should return mayalias for anything that > interacts with them. > We don't do that right now. > We are just hiding it mildly well. > > > Should we be added an edge from the inttoptr to all other pointer values? > Is there a better way? > > > > > > > Speaking of which, the code has checks for global variables in > several places. Do these need to be for globals that are not aliases > and don't have weak linkage? > > > > It's more a question of whether they are in SSA form than if they are > globals. > > > It's effectively using Globals/Arguments as a way to say "don't know" > in some cases, where it should really just say "don't know". > > > There is a bunch of code i now have marked for cleanup and bugfixes > around these issues (constant vs global handling, handling of > non-pointer values, etc). > > > Okay, thanks! > > > > As mentioned, the above is necessary to fix the LICM issue (and is > correct, even if somewhere else is wrong. For reference, GCC does > the identical thing to what i'm saying :P), but i'm happy to move it > to a separate fix (that includes fixes for the other > argument/unknown related issues) if you like. > > > > > Generically speaking, I'd prefer the fixes to be broken up as much as > practical. Please go ahead and commit them. > > -Hal > > > > > > > > > > Thanks again, > Hal > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue Jan 20 2015 at 3:54:10 PM Hal Finkel < hfinkel at anl.gov > > > wrote: > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Daniel Berlin" < dberlin at dberlin.org > > > > To: "Hal Finkel" < hfinkel at anl.gov > > > > Cc: "Jiangning Liu" < Jiangning.Liu at arm.com >, "George Burgess > > > IV" > > > < george.burgess.iv at gmail.com >, "LLVM Developers > > > Mailing List" < llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu >, "Nick Lewycky" < > > > nlewycky at google.com > > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:48:44 PM > > > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] question about enabling cfl-aa and > > > collecting a57 numbers > > > > > > So, I can make all these testcases work, but it's a little tricky > > > (it > > > involves tracking some things, like GEP byte range, and then > > > checking bases and using getObjectSize, much like BasicAA does). > > > > > > > > > Because i really don't want to put that much "not well tested" > > > code > > > in a bugfix, and honestly, i'm not sure we will catch any cases > > > here > > > that BasicAA does not, i've attached a change to XFAIL these > > > testcases, and updated the code to return MayAlias. > > > > Okay. I think you might as well just update the test cases to want > > MayAlias, and put a FIXME comment explaining that they could be > > PartialAlias. As far as I know, there is no code in LLVM that > > really > > handles a PartialAlias differently than a MayAlias or MustAlias, > > and > > so while there may be some benefit here, I'm not sure it will be > > worth the effort. > > > > > > > > I will build and test a patch to get these back to PartialAlias, > > > but > > > this patch will at least get us to not be "giving wrong answers". > > > I > > > will also see if we catch anything with it that BasicAA does not, > > > because if we don't, it doesn't seem worth it to me. > > > > My guess is that BasicAA will get almost all of the interesting > > PartialAlias cases, and as I said, we essentially ignore them > > anyway. > > > > As a side note, there is this one place in lib/Analysis/ > > MemoryDependenceAnalysis.cpp that could use some attention: > > > > #if 0 // FIXME: Temporarily disabled. GVN is cleverly rewriting > > loads > > // in terms of clobbering loads, but since it does this by looking > > // at the clobbering load directly, it doesn't know about any > > // phi translation that may have happened along the way. > > > > // If we have a partial alias, then return this as a clobber for > > the > > // client to handle. > > if (R == AliasAnalysis::PartialAlias) > > return MemDepResult::getClobber(Inst) ; > > #endif > > > > > > > > > > > Conservative new patch attached. > > > > > > > > > > > > (Note that i still updated the testcases, because we will *never* > > > be > > > able to legally return PartialAlias as they were written) > > > > > > > Yes, sounds good. > > > > -Hal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun Jan 18 2015 at 2:12:47 PM Daniel Berlin < > > > dberlin at dberlin.org > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat Jan 17 2015 at 3:15:27 PM Hal Finkel < hfinkel at anl.gov > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Daniel Berlin" < dberlin at dberlin.org > > > > > To: "Hal Finkel" < hfinkel at anl.gov > > > > > Cc: "Jiangning Liu" < Jiangning.Liu at arm.com >, "George Burgess > > > > IV" > > > > < george.burgess.iv at gmail.com >, "LLVM Developers > > > > Mailing List" < llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu >, "Nick Lewycky" < > > > > nlewycky at google.com > > > > > Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2015 1:08:10 PM > > > > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] question about enabling cfl-aa and > > > > collecting a57 numbers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat Jan 17 2015 at 12:03:33 AM Hal Finkel < hfinkel at anl.gov > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Danny, > > > > > > > > // Add TypeBasedAliasAnalysis before BasicAliasAnalysis so that > > > > // BasicAliasAnalysis wins if they disagree. This is intended > > > > to > > > > help > > > > // support "obvious" type-punning idioms. > > > > - if (UseCFLAA) > > > > - addPass( createCFLAliasAnalysisPass()); > > > > addPass( createTypeBasedAliasAnalysisPa ss()); > > > > addPass( createScopedNoAliasAAPass()); > > > > + if (UseCFLAA) > > > > + addPass( createCFLAliasAnalysisPass()); > > > > addPass( createBasicAliasAnalysisPass() ); > > > > > > > > Do we really want to change the order here? I had originally > > > > placed > > > > it after the metadata-based passes thinking that the > > > > compile-time > > > > would be better (guessing that the metadata queries would be > > > > faster > > > > than the CFL queries, so if the metadata could quickly return a > > > > NoAlias, then we'd cut out unecessary CFL queries). Perhaps > > > > this > > > > is > > > > an irrelevant effect, but we should have some documented > > > > rationale. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, this was a mistake (Chandler had suggested it was right > > > > earlier, but we were both wrong :P) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ; CHECK: PartialAlias: i16* %bigbase0, i8* %phi > > > > -define i8 @test0(i8* %base, i1 %x) { > > > > +define i8 @test0(i1 %x) { > > > > entry: > > > > + %base = alloca i8, align 4 > > > > %baseplusone = getelementptr i8* %base, i64 1 > > > > br i1 %x, label %red, label %green > > > > red: > > > > @@ -25,8 +26,9 @@ green: > > > > } > > > > > > > > why should this return PartialAlias? %ohi does partially > > > > overlap, > > > > so > > > > this correct, but what happens when the overlap is partial or > > > > control dependent? > > > > So, after talking with some people offline, they convinced me > > > > in > > > > SSA > > > > form, the name would change in these situations, and the only > > > > situations you can get into trouble is with things "based on > > > > pointer > > > > arguments" (because you have no idea what their initial state > > > > is), > > > > or "globals" (because they are not in SSA form) > > > > I could not come up with a case otherwise > > > > > > Okay; that part of the code could really use some more > > > commentary. > > > I'd really appreciate it if you should put these thoughts in > > > written > > > form that could be added as comments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Will do > > > > > > > > > > > > > But i'm welcome to hear if you think this is wrong. > > > > > > > > FWIW: I bootstrapped/tested the compiler with an assert that > > > > triggered if CFL-AA was going to return PartialAlias and > > > > BasicAA > > > > would have returned NoAlias, and it did not trigger with this > > > > change. > > > > > > > > > > > > (It would have triggered before this set of changes) > > > > > > > > Not proof of course, but it at least tells me it's not > > > > "obviously > > > > wrong" :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's good :) -- but, not exactly what I was concerned about. > > > Our > > > general convention has been that PartialAlias is a "strong" > > > result, > > > like MustAlias, but implies that AA has proved that only a > > > partial > > > overlap will occur. > > > > > > So, in this test case we get the right result: > > > > > > ; CHECK: PartialAlias: i16* %bigbase0, i8* %phi > > > define i8 @test0(i1 %x) { > > > entry: > > > %base = alloca i8, align 4 > > > %baseplusone = getelementptr i8* %base, i64 1 > > > br i1 %x, label %red, label %green > > > red: > > > br label %green > > > green: > > > %phi = phi i8* [ %baseplusone, %red ], [ %base, %entry ] > > > store i8 0, i8* %phi > > > > > > %bigbase0 = bitcast i8* %base to i16* > > > store i16 -1, i16* %bigbase0 > > > > > > %loaded = load i8* %phi > > > ret i8 %loaded > > > } > > > > > > because %phi will have a partial overlap with %bigbase0, the only > > > uncertainty is whether the overlap is with the low byte or the > > > high > > > byte. But if I modify the test to be this: > > > > > > define i8 @test0x(i1 %x) { > > > entry: > > > %base = alloca i8, align 4 > > > %baseplustwo = getelementptr i8* %base, i64 2 > > > br i1 %x, label %red, label %green > > > red: > > > br label %green > > > green: > > > %phi = phi i8* [ %baseplustwo, %red ], [ %base, %entry ] > > > store i8 0, i8* %phi > > > > > > %bigbase0 = bitcast i8* %base to i16* > > > store i16 -1, i16* %bigbase0 > > > > > > %loaded = load i8* %phi > > > ret i8 %loaded > > > } > > > > > > I still get this result: > > > PartialAlias: i16* %bigbase0, i8* %phi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but now %phi might not overlap %bigbase0 at all (although, when > > > it > > > does, there is a partial overlap), so we should just return > > > MayAlias > > > (perhaps without delegation because this is a definitive > > > result?). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, i have to do some size checking, let me see if we have the > > > info > > > and i'll update the patch. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, my view is that we should always delegate MayAlias, > > > because we have no idea what order the passes are in or what pass > > > someone has inserted where :) > > > > > > > > > (WIW: I believe the same about everything except MustAlias and > > > NoAlias, but currently we don't delegate PartialAlias. > > > We claim PartialAlias is a definitive result, but it really > > > isn't. > > > Right now we have TBAA that will give NoAlias results on things > > > other > > > passes claim are PartialAlias, and that result is correct. That's > > > just in our default, we have no idea what other people do. Even > > > if > > > you ignore TBAA, plenty of other compilers have noalias/mustalias > > > metadata that would have the same effect. > > > > -- > > Hal Finkel > > Assistant Computational Scientist > > Leadership Computing Facility > > Argonne National Laboratory > > > > -- > Hal Finkel > Assistant Computational Scientist > Leadership Computing Facility > Argonne National Laboratory > > > -- > > > Hal Finkel > Assistant Computational Scientist > Leadership Computing Facility > Argonne National Laboratory > > > > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150123/004716b4/attachment.html>
Possibly Parallel Threads
- [LLVMdev] question about enabling cfl-aa and collecting a57 numbers
- [LLVMdev] question about enabling cfl-aa and collecting a57 numbers
- [LLVMdev] question about enabling cfl-aa and collecting a57 numbers
- [LLVMdev] question about enabling cfl-aa and collecting a57 numbers
- [LLVMdev] question about enabling cfl-aa and collecting a57 numbers