thr3ads.net - llvm dev - [LLVMdev] question about enabling cfl-aa and collecting a57 numbers [Jan 2015]

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

Hal Finkel

2015-Jan-17 08:03 UTC

[LLVMdev] question about enabling cfl-aa and collecting a57 numbers

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(createTypeBasedAliasAnalysisPass());
   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.

 ; 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? I
thought you had concluded that CFL should return only NoAlias or MayAlias?

Thanks again,
Hal

----- Original Message -----> From: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin.org>
> To: "Nick Lewycky" <nlewycky at google.com>
> 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>
> Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 2:22:23 PM
> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] question about enabling cfl-aa and collecting a57
numbers
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, overnight i ran a ton of tests on this patch, and it seems
> right.
> Nick, Hal, can you review it?
> 
> 
> I've reattached it for simplicity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Daniel Berlin < dberlin at dberlin.org
> > wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Nick Lewycky < nlewycky at google.com
>
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 15 January 2015 at 13:10, Daniel Berlin < dberlin at dberlin.org >
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> I've attached an updated patch that does the following:
> 
> 
> 1. Fixes the partialalias of globals/arguments
> 2. Enables partialalias for cases where nothing has been unified to a
> global/argument
> 3. Fixes that select was unifying the condition to the other pieces
> (the condition does not need to be processed :P). This was causing
> unnecessary aliasing.
> 
> 
> Consider this:
> 
> 
> 
> void *p = ...;
> uintptr_t i = p;
> uintptr_t j = 0;
> for (int a = 0; a < sizeof(uintptr_t); ++a) {
> j = i >> (sizeof(uintptr_t) - a - 1) ? 1 : 0;
> j <<= 1;
> }
> void *q = j;
> 
> 
> alias(p, q) isn't NoAlias. (Okay, it kinda is in C++, but not in the
> equivalent LLVM IR. Please don't make me rewrite my example in LLVM
> IR.)
> 
> 
> Agreed :)
> 
> 
> But after chatting with you, i think we both agree that this change
> does not affect.
> I probably should not have said "the condition does not need to be
> processed". It would be more accurate to say "the reference to a
> condition in a select instruction, by itself, does not cause
> aliasing"
> 
> 
> What happens now is:
> 
> 
> given %4 = select %1, %2, %3
> 
> 
> we do
> aliasset(%4) += %1
> aliasset(%4) += %2
> aliasset(%4) += %3
> 
> The first one is unnecessary.
> There can be no alias caused simply because it is referenced in
> condition of the select.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We still need to process what %1 refers to (and we do).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To make this empirical, in your example, we get the right answer in
> CFL-AA.
> 
> 
> Interestingly, i'll point out that basic-aa says:
> 
> NoAlias: i8* %p, i8** %q
> NoAlias: i8** %p.addr, i8** %q
> 
> 
> (I translated your case as best i can :P)
> 
> 
> So you may want to implement it for real if you think it's supposed
> to be handled right in basic-aa, because I don't believe it is :)
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> 
-- 
Hal Finkel
Assistant Computational Scientist
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory

Hal Finkel

2015-Jan-17 13:15 UTC

head link

[LLVMdev] question about enabling cfl-aa and collecting a57 numbers

----- Original Message -----> From: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>
> To: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin.org>
> 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>
> Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2015 2:03:18 AM
> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] question about enabling cfl-aa and collecting	a57
numbers
> 
> 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(createTypeBasedAliasAnalysisPass());
>    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.
Please ignore the above question; I had forgotten that you had posted a newer
version of the patch without the ordering change. Only the question below
matters...

Thanks again,
Hal
> 
>  ; 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? I thought you had concluded that CFL should
> return only NoAlias or MayAlias?
> 
> Thanks again,
> Hal
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin.org>
> > To: "Nick Lewycky" <nlewycky at google.com>
> > 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>
> > Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 2:22:23 PM
> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] question about enabling cfl-aa and
> > collecting a57	numbers
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Okay, overnight i ran a ton of tests on this patch, and it seems
> > right.
> > Nick, Hal, can you review it?
> > 
> > 
> > I've reattached it for simplicity
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Daniel Berlin <
> > dberlin at dberlin.org
> > > wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Nick Lewycky < nlewycky at
google.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 15 January 2015 at 13:10, Daniel Berlin < dberlin at dberlin.org
>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Yes.
> > I've attached an updated patch that does the following:
> > 
> > 
> > 1. Fixes the partialalias of globals/arguments
> > 2. Enables partialalias for cases where nothing has been unified to
> > a
> > global/argument
> > 3. Fixes that select was unifying the condition to the other pieces
> > (the condition does not need to be processed :P). This was causing
> > unnecessary aliasing.
> > 
> > 
> > Consider this:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > void *p = ...;
> > uintptr_t i = p;
> > uintptr_t j = 0;
> > for (int a = 0; a < sizeof(uintptr_t); ++a) {
> > j = i >> (sizeof(uintptr_t) - a - 1) ? 1 : 0;
> > j <<= 1;
> > }
> > void *q = j;
> > 
> > 
> > alias(p, q) isn't NoAlias. (Okay, it kinda is in C++, but not in
> > the
> > equivalent LLVM IR. Please don't make me rewrite my example in
LLVM
> > IR.)
> > 
> > 
> > Agreed :)
> > 
> > 
> > But after chatting with you, i think we both agree that this change
> > does not affect.
> > I probably should not have said "the condition does not need to
be
> > processed". It would be more accurate to say "the reference
to a
> > condition in a select instruction, by itself, does not cause
> > aliasing"
> > 
> > 
> > What happens now is:
> > 
> > 
> > given %4 = select %1, %2, %3
> > 
> > 
> > we do
> > aliasset(%4) += %1
> > aliasset(%4) += %2
> > aliasset(%4) += %3
> > 
> > The first one is unnecessary.
> > There can be no alias caused simply because it is referenced in
> > condition of the select.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > We still need to process what %1 refers to (and we do).
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > To make this empirical, in your example, we get the right answer in
> > CFL-AA.
> > 
> > 
> > Interestingly, i'll point out that basic-aa says:
> > 
> > NoAlias: i8* %p, i8** %q
> > NoAlias: i8** %p.addr, i8** %q
> > 
> > 
> > (I translated your case as best i can :P)
> > 
> > 
> > So you may want to implement it for real if you think it's
supposed
> > to be handled right in basic-aa, because I don't believe it is :)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> > 
> 
> --
> Hal Finkel
> Assistant Computational Scientist
> Leadership Computing Facility
> Argonne National Laboratory
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> 
-- 
Hal Finkel
Assistant Computational Scientist
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory

Daniel Berlin

2015-Jan-17 19:08 UTC

head link

[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(createTypeBasedAliasAnalysisPass());
>    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
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" :)



thought you had concluded that CFL should return only NoAlias or MayAlias?

> Thanks again,
> Hal
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin.org>
> > To: "Nick Lewycky" <nlewycky at google.com>
> > 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>
> > Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 2:22:23 PM
> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] question about enabling cfl-aa and collecting
> a57      numbers
> >
> >
> >
> > Okay, overnight i ran a ton of tests on this patch, and it seems
> > right.
> > Nick, Hal, can you review it?
> >
> >
> > I've reattached it for simplicity
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Daniel Berlin < dberlin at
dberlin.org
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Nick Lewycky < nlewycky at
google.com >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 15 January 2015 at 13:10, Daniel Berlin < dberlin at dberlin.org
>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes.
> > I've attached an updated patch that does the following:
> >
> >
> > 1. Fixes the partialalias of globals/arguments
> > 2. Enables partialalias for cases where nothing has been unified to a
> > global/argument
> > 3. Fixes that select was unifying the condition to the other pieces
> > (the condition does not need to be processed :P). This was causing
> > unnecessary aliasing.
> >
> >
> > Consider this:
> >
> >
> >
> > void *p = ...;
> > uintptr_t i = p;
> > uintptr_t j = 0;
> > for (int a = 0; a < sizeof(uintptr_t); ++a) {
> > j = i >> (sizeof(uintptr_t) - a - 1) ? 1 : 0;
> > j <<= 1;
> > }
> > void *q = j;
> >
> >
> > alias(p, q) isn't NoAlias. (Okay, it kinda is in C++, but not in
the
> > equivalent LLVM IR. Please don't make me rewrite my example in
LLVM
> > IR.)
> >
> >
> > Agreed :)
> >
> >
> > But after chatting with you, i think we both agree that this change
> > does not affect.
> > I probably should not have said "the condition does not need to
be
> > processed". It would be more accurate to say "the reference
to a
> > condition in a select instruction, by itself, does not cause
> > aliasing"
> >
> >
> > What happens now is:
> >
> >
> > given %4 = select %1, %2, %3
> >
> >
> > we do
> > aliasset(%4) += %1
> > aliasset(%4) += %2
> > aliasset(%4) += %3
> >
> > The first one is unnecessary.
> > There can be no alias caused simply because it is referenced in
> > condition of the select.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > We still need to process what %1 refers to (and we do).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To make this empirical, in your example, we get the right answer in
> > CFL-AA.
> >
> >
> > Interestingly, i'll point out that basic-aa says:
> >
> > NoAlias: i8* %p, i8** %q
> > NoAlias: i8** %p.addr, i8** %q
> >
> >
> > (I translated your case as best i can :P)
> >
> >
> > So you may want to implement it for real if you think it's
supposed
> > to be handled right in basic-aa, because I don't believe it is :)
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> >
>
> --
> 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/20150117/88a3d4b4/attachment.html>

Hal Finkel

2015-Jan-17 23:15 UTC

head link

[LLVMdev] question about enabling cfl-aa and collecting a57 numbers

----- 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.
> 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?).

Thanks again,
Hal
> 
> 
> 
> thought you had concluded that CFL should return only NoAlias or
> MayAlias?
> 
> 
> Thanks again,
> Hal
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Daniel Berlin" < dberlin at dberlin.org >
> > To: "Nick Lewycky" < nlewycky at google.com >
> > 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 >
> > Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 2:22:23 PM
> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] question about enabling cfl-aa and
> > collecting a57 numbers
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Okay, overnight i ran a ton of tests on this patch, and it seems
> > right.
> > Nick, Hal, can you review it?
> > 
> > 
> > I've reattached it for simplicity
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Daniel Berlin <
> > dberlin at dberlin.org
> > > wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Nick Lewycky < nlewycky at
google.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 15 January 2015 at 13:10, Daniel Berlin < dberlin at dberlin.org
>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Yes.
> > I've attached an updated patch that does the following:
> > 
> > 
> > 1. Fixes the partialalias of globals/arguments
> > 2. Enables partialalias for cases where nothing has been unified to
> > a
> > global/argument
> > 3. Fixes that select was unifying the condition to the other pieces
> > (the condition does not need to be processed :P). This was causing
> > unnecessary aliasing.
> > 
> > 
> > Consider this:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > void *p = ...;
> > uintptr_t i = p;
> > uintptr_t j = 0;
> > for (int a = 0; a < sizeof(uintptr_t); ++a) {
> > j = i >> (sizeof(uintptr_t) - a - 1) ? 1 : 0;
> > j <<= 1;
> > }
> > void *q = j;
> > 
> > 
> > alias(p, q) isn't NoAlias. (Okay, it kinda is in C++, but not in
> > the
> > equivalent LLVM IR. Please don't make me rewrite my example in
LLVM
> > IR.)
> > 
> > 
> > Agreed :)
> > 
> > 
> > But after chatting with you, i think we both agree that this change
> > does not affect.
> > I probably should not have said "the condition does not need to
be
> > processed". It would be more accurate to say "the reference
to a
> > condition in a select instruction, by itself, does not cause
> > aliasing"
> > 
> > 
> > What happens now is:
> > 
> > 
> > given %4 = select %1, %2, %3
> > 
> > 
> > we do
> > aliasset(%4) += %1
> > aliasset(%4) += %2
> > aliasset(%4) += %3
> > 
> > The first one is unnecessary.
> > There can be no alias caused simply because it is referenced in
> > condition of the select.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > We still need to process what %1 refers to (and we do).
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > To make this empirical, in your example, we get the right answer in
> > CFL-AA.
> > 
> > 
> > Interestingly, i'll point out that basic-aa says:
> > 
> > NoAlias: i8* %p, i8** %q
> > NoAlias: i8** %p.addr, i8** %q
> > 
> > 
> > (I translated your case as best i can :P)
> > 
> > 
> > So you may want to implement it for real if you think it's
supposed
> > to be handled right in basic-aa, because I don't believe it is :)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ______________________________ _________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/ mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> > 
> 
> --
> Hal Finkel
> Assistant Computational Scientist
> Leadership Computing Facility
> Argonne National Laboratory
> 
-- 
Hal Finkel
Assistant Computational Scientist
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory

Seemingly Similar Threads

Search for more possibly parallel threads

llvm dev - Jan 2015 - [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

Seemingly Similar Threads