Jingu Kang via llvm-dev
2021-Jul-16 16:29 UTC
[llvm-dev] Question about Unrolling Loop with Multiple Exits
Hi Philip, Thanks for your kind reply.> A) Are you measuring on tip of tree?� There were changes for multiple exit unrolling which landed very recently.Yep, I am investigating benchmarks with llvm tip and I can see the llvm fails to unroll some loops with multiple exits.> B) One of your exits does not dominate your latch.� Those are generally hard > C) This example does not seem to require gotos.� I strongly suggest reducing your test cases if you want more informed commentary.�I am looking at perlbench recently and it has `goto` statements inside loop. The example is a reduced case. When I look at the gcc's output of the example, it looks like gcc unrolls only the below `if` statement block... if (*s++ != '\n') continue; Thanks JinGu Kang From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Philip Reames via llvm-dev Sent: 16 July 2021 15:52 To: Jingu Kang <Jingu.Kang at arm.com>; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Question about Unrolling Loop with Multiple Exits A) Are you measuring on tip of tree?� There were changes for multiple exit unrolling which landed very recently. B) One of your exits does not dominate your latch.� Those are generally hard.� C) This example does not seem to require gotos.� I strongly suggest reducing your test cases if you want more informed commentary.� Philip On 7/16/21 7:42 AM, Jingu Kang via llvm-dev wrote: Hi All, � While I am investigating benchmarks, I have found loops which llvm fails to unroll because the loops have multiple exits. For example, � char *foo(void); int boo(char *s); � int test(char *s, char *end, char *check1, char *check2) { � while (s <= end) { ��� if (*s++ != '\n') ����� continue; ��� if (check1 || check2) { ����� s = foo(); ����� if (!s) ������� goto ret1; ��� }�� ����if (boo(s)) ����� goto ret0; � } � goto ret1; � ret0: � return 0; ret1: � return 1; } � Above code causes below messages from LoopUnroll pass. � Bailout for multi-exit handling when latch exit has >1 predecessor. Multiple exit/exiting blocks in loop and multi-exit unrolling not enabled! � I can see the option `unroll-runtime-multi-exit` and comments about it. I wonder there are already reviews for the work on phabriactor or some people are working on it. If someone knows information about it, please share it. � Thanks JinGu Kang � � � � � � _______________________________________________ LLVM Developers mailing list llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> https://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/20210716/e2f0c72a/attachment.html>
Philip Reames via llvm-dev
2021-Jul-16 17:26 UTC
[llvm-dev] Question about Unrolling Loop with Multiple Exits
On 7/16/21 9:29 AM, Jingu Kang wrote:> > Hi Philip, > > Thanks for your kind reply. > > > A) Are you measuring on tip of tree?� There were changes for > multiple exit unrolling which landed very recently. > > Yep, I am investigating benchmarks with llvm tip and I can see the > llvm fails to unroll some loops with multiple exits. > > > B) One of your exits does not dominate your latch.� Those are > generally hard > > > C) This example does not seem to require gotos.� I strongly > suggest reducing your test cases if you want more informed commentary.� > > I am looking at perlbench recently and it has `goto` statements inside > loop. The example is a reduced case. >Right, but the gotos aren't relevant for your reduced test. You can reduce further.> > When I look at the gcc’s output of the example, it looks like gcc > unrolls only the below `if` statement block… > > if (*s++ != '\n') > > continue; >Your phrasing here does not parse for me. Can you restate this with different wording and maybe a fully worked example?> > Thanks > > JinGu Kang > > *From:* llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> *On Behalf Of > *Philip Reames via llvm-dev > *Sent:* 16 July 2021 15:52 > *To:* Jingu Kang <Jingu.Kang at arm.com>; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > *Subject:* Re: [llvm-dev] Question about Unrolling Loop with Multiple > Exits > > A) Are you measuring on tip of tree?� There were changes for > multiple exit unrolling which landed very recently. > > B) One of your exits does not dominate your latch.� Those are > generally hard.� > > C) This example does not seem to require gotos.� I strongly suggest > reducing your test cases if you want more informed commentary.� > > Philip > > On 7/16/21 7:42 AM, Jingu Kang via llvm-dev wrote: > > Hi All, > > � > > While I am investigating benchmarks, I have found loops which llvm > fails to unroll because the loops have multiple exits. > > For example, > > � > > char *foo(void); > > int boo(char *s); > > � > > int test(char *s, char *end, char *check1, char *check2) { > > � while (s <= end) { > > ��� if (*s++ != '\n') > > ����� continue; > > ��� if (check1 || check2) { > > ����� s = foo(); > > ����� if (!s) > > ������� goto ret1; > > ��� }�� > > ����if (boo(s)) > > ����� goto ret0; > > � } > > � goto ret1; > > � > > ret0: > > � return 0; > > ret1: > > � return 1; > > } > > � > > Above code causes below messages from LoopUnroll pass. > > � > > Bailout for multi-exit handling when latch exit has >1 predecessor. > > Multiple exit/exiting blocks in loop and multi-exit unrolling not > enabled! > > � > > I can see the option `unroll-runtime-multi-exit` and comments > about it. I wonder there are already reviews for the work on > phabriactor or some people are working on it. > > If someone knows information about it, please share it. > > � > > Thanks > > JinGu Kang > > � > > � > > � > > � > > � > > � > > > > _______________________________________________ > > LLVM Developers mailing list > > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev <https://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/20210716/ef2cd4c8/attachment.html>