[llvm-dev] RFC: New aggressive dead code elimination pass

Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev
Fri, 25 Mar 2016 02:28:27 -0000

Yeah, that was gonna be my question.
If so, my view is we should just bite the bullet and start threading post
dominance through the compiler.
(assuming anyone wants to help. I'm tackling the memoryssa updating stuff
with george ATM).



On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:

> [+Danny]
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Justin Bogner via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
> > To: "David Callahan via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 12:36:50 PM
> > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: New aggressive dead code elimination pass
> >
> > David Callahan via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I have a new variant of Aggressive Dead Code Elimination that
also
> > > removes dead branching. It is designed to minimize the cost of
> > > control-dependence analysis in the common case where almost the
> > > entire
> > > program is live. It also can optionally remove dead but
> > > may-be-infinite loops.
> > >
> > > When enabled for –O3 (replacing current ADCE pass) and removing
> > > loops,
> > > impact on SPEC2006 is in the noise but it impacts internal
> > > benchmarks
> > > suites 1-2% with a comparable increase in compile time.  My
> > > expectation would be to enable –O3 only until we have some
> > > experience
> > > with cost but I suspect it should be fine –O2.
> >
> > Just to clarify, you're saying that both runtime and compile time
> > impact
> > were in the noise on SPEC, right?
> >
> > > What information would the community like to see about such a
> > > change
> > > before I put up a diff and (including tweaks to unit tests).
> >
> > I'm not sure that there's much to discuss in the abstract -
it's much
> > easier to evaluate this kind of thing when there's a patch to
refer
> > to.
> > Presumably people will want to try the patch out on their own
> > internal
> > benchmarks as well.
>
> +1
>
> Does it use post-dominance information?
>
>  -Hal
>
> >
> > > Thanks
> > > david
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> >
>
> --
> 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/20160324/85a8fc75/attachment.html>