thr3ads.net - llvm dev - [llvm-dev] Question on TBAA and optimization [Nov 2019]

If this information is useful, please help other people find it:
Share via:

Venkataramanan Kumar via llvm-dev

2019-Nov-28 16:28 UTC

[llvm-dev] Question on TBAA and optimization

TBAA Question.

Please consider the following test case.

---Snip--
struct B {
  int b1;
  int b2;
};

struct C {
 int b1;
};

struct A {
 int a1;
 struct C SC;
 int a2;
};

int foo1(struct A * Aptr, struct B* Bptr)
{
   int *a = &Aptr->SC.b1;
   *a=10;
   Bptr->b1 = 11;
   return *a;
}

int foo2(struct A * Aptr, struct B* Bptr)
{
   Aptr->SC.b1=10;
   Bptr->b1 = 11;
   return Aptr->SC.b1;
}
---Snip--

The structure pointers "Aptr" and "Bptr" will not alias each
other in both
the functions.
TBAA is able to figure that out in the case of "foo2". Hence it could
propagate the  value "10" directly for return in "foo2".

--IR snippet ---

; Function Attrs: nounwind uwtable
define dso_local i32 @foo1(%struct.A* %Aptr, %struct.B* %Bptr)
local_unnamed_addr #0 {
entry:
  %b1 = getelementptr inbounds %struct.A, %struct.A* %Aptr, i64 0, i32 1,
i32 0
  store i32 10, i32* %b1, align 4, !tbaa !2
  %b11 = getelementptr inbounds %struct.B, %struct.B* %Bptr, i64 0, i32 0
  store i32 11, i32* %b11, align 4, !tbaa !6
  %0 = load i32, i32* %b1, align 4, !tbaa !2 <== reloads from memory.
  ret i32 %0
}

; Function Attrs: nounwind uwtable
define dso_local i32 @foo2(%struct.A* %Aptr, %struct.B* %Bptr)
local_unnamed_addr #0 {
entry:
  %b1 = getelementptr inbounds %struct.A, %struct.A* %Aptr, i64 0, i32 1,
i32 0
  store i32 10, i32* %b1, align 4, !tbaa !8
  %b11 = getelementptr inbounds %struct.B, %struct.B* %Bptr, i64 0, i32 0
  store i32 11, i32* %b11, align 4, !tbaa !6
  ret i32 10 <== returns 10
}
---IR snippet ---

I assume for both cases there is no possibility of memory aliasing. is my
assumption wrong?
Why we are not optimizing the return for function "foo1"?  is that
because
TBAA is not formed in that case?

Please clarify.

regards,
Venkat.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20191128/f85b5296/attachment.html>

Venkataramanan Kumar via llvm-dev

2019-Dec-02 15:40 UTC

head link

[llvm-dev] Question on TBAA and optimization

Can someone clarify on this please?

On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 21:58, Venkataramanan Kumar <
venkataramanan.kumar.llvm at gmail.com> wrote:
> TBAA Question.
>
> Please consider the following test case.
>
> ---Snip--
> struct B {
>   int b1;
>   int b2;
> };
>
> struct C {
>  int b1;
> };
>
> struct A {
>  int a1;
>  struct C SC;
>  int a2;
> };
>
> int foo1(struct A * Aptr, struct B* Bptr)
> {
>    int *a = &Aptr->SC.b1;
>    *a=10;
>    Bptr->b1 = 11;
>    return *a;
> }
>
> int foo2(struct A * Aptr, struct B* Bptr)
> {
>    Aptr->SC.b1=10;
>    Bptr->b1 = 11;
>    return Aptr->SC.b1;
> }
> ---Snip--
>
> The structure pointers "Aptr" and "Bptr" will not alias
each other in both
> the functions.
> TBAA is able to figure that out in the case of "foo2". Hence it
could
> propagate the  value "10" directly for return in
"foo2".
>
> --IR snippet ---
>
> ; Function Attrs: nounwind uwtable
> define dso_local i32 @foo1(%struct.A* %Aptr, %struct.B* %Bptr)
> local_unnamed_addr #0 {
> entry:
>   %b1 = getelementptr inbounds %struct.A, %struct.A* %Aptr, i64 0, i32 1,
> i32 0
>   store i32 10, i32* %b1, align 4, !tbaa !2
>   %b11 = getelementptr inbounds %struct.B, %struct.B* %Bptr, i64 0, i32 0
>   store i32 11, i32* %b11, align 4, !tbaa !6
>   %0 = load i32, i32* %b1, align 4, !tbaa !2 <== reloads from memory.
>   ret i32 %0
> }
>
> ; Function Attrs: nounwind uwtable
> define dso_local i32 @foo2(%struct.A* %Aptr, %struct.B* %Bptr)
> local_unnamed_addr #0 {
> entry:
>   %b1 = getelementptr inbounds %struct.A, %struct.A* %Aptr, i64 0, i32 1,
> i32 0
>   store i32 10, i32* %b1, align 4, !tbaa !8
>   %b11 = getelementptr inbounds %struct.B, %struct.B* %Bptr, i64 0, i32 0
>   store i32 11, i32* %b11, align 4, !tbaa !6
>   ret i32 10 <== returns 10
> }
> ---IR snippet ---
>
> I assume for both cases there is no possibility of memory aliasing. is my
> assumption wrong?
> Why we are not optimizing the return for function "foo1"?  is
that because
> TBAA is not formed in that case?
>
> Please clarify.
>
> regards,
> Venkat.
>-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20191202/b377d842/attachment.html>

Neil Henning via llvm-dev

2019-Dec-03 09:32 UTC

head link

[llvm-dev] Question on TBAA and optimization

I can reproduce your results - its not forwarding the load from the
previous store. I'm not sure why but none of the alias analysis passes are
detecting that the two GEPs do not alias (they always come out as MayAlias)
and I think its abandoning doing the store forwarding as a result.

You might want to file a bug for this?

Cheers,
-Neil.

On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 3:41 PM Venkataramanan Kumar via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Can someone clarify on this please?
>
> On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 21:58, Venkataramanan Kumar <
> venkataramanan.kumar.llvm at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> TBAA Question.
>>
>> Please consider the following test case.
>>
>> ---Snip--
>> struct B {
>>   int b1;
>>   int b2;
>> };
>>
>> struct C {
>>  int b1;
>> };
>>
>> struct A {
>>  int a1;
>>  struct C SC;
>>  int a2;
>> };
>>
>> int foo1(struct A * Aptr, struct B* Bptr)
>> {
>>    int *a = &Aptr->SC.b1;
>>    *a=10;
>>    Bptr->b1 = 11;
>>    return *a;
>> }
>>
>> int foo2(struct A * Aptr, struct B* Bptr)
>> {
>>    Aptr->SC.b1=10;
>>    Bptr->b1 = 11;
>>    return Aptr->SC.b1;
>> }
>> ---Snip--
>>
>> The structure pointers "Aptr" and "Bptr" will not
alias each other in
>> both the functions.
>> TBAA is able to figure that out in the case of "foo2". Hence
it could
>> propagate the  value "10" directly for return in
"foo2".
>>
>> --IR snippet ---
>>
>> ; Function Attrs: nounwind uwtable
>> define dso_local i32 @foo1(%struct.A* %Aptr, %struct.B* %Bptr)
>> local_unnamed_addr #0 {
>> entry:
>>   %b1 = getelementptr inbounds %struct.A, %struct.A* %Aptr, i64 0, i32
1,
>> i32 0
>>   store i32 10, i32* %b1, align 4, !tbaa !2
>>   %b11 = getelementptr inbounds %struct.B, %struct.B* %Bptr, i64 0, i32
0
>>   store i32 11, i32* %b11, align 4, !tbaa !6
>>   %0 = load i32, i32* %b1, align 4, !tbaa !2 <== reloads from
memory.
>>   ret i32 %0
>> }
>>
>> ; Function Attrs: nounwind uwtable
>> define dso_local i32 @foo2(%struct.A* %Aptr, %struct.B* %Bptr)
>> local_unnamed_addr #0 {
>> entry:
>>   %b1 = getelementptr inbounds %struct.A, %struct.A* %Aptr, i64 0, i32
1,
>> i32 0
>>   store i32 10, i32* %b1, align 4, !tbaa !8
>>   %b11 = getelementptr inbounds %struct.B, %struct.B* %Bptr, i64 0, i32
0
>>   store i32 11, i32* %b11, align 4, !tbaa !6
>>   ret i32 10 <== returns 10
>> }
>> ---IR snippet ---
>>
>> I assume for both cases there is no possibility of memory aliasing. is
my
>> assumption wrong?
>> Why we are not optimizing the return for function "foo1"?  is
that
>> because TBAA is not formed in that case?
>>
>> Please clarify.
>>
>> regards,
>> Venkat.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>

-- 
Neil Henning
Senior Software Engineer Compiler
unity.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20191203/8910c71a/attachment.html>

Maybe Matching Threads

Search for more maybe matching threads

llvm dev - Nov 2019 - Question on TBAA and optimization

[llvm-dev] Question on TBAA and optimization

[llvm-dev] Question on TBAA and optimization

[llvm-dev] Question on TBAA and optimization

Maybe Matching Threads