llvm dev - May 2016 - [GSoC 2016] Interprocedural Register Allocation - Introduction and Feedback

> On May 24, 2016, at 10:08 PM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at
gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com
<mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>> wrote:
> 
>> On May 24, 2016, at 9:17 PM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at gmail.com
<mailto:vivekvpandya at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear Mentors,
>> 
>> Please help me to understand our plan to implement Interprocedural
Register allocator by propogating register usage info. While writing this mail I
am considering all previous discussion over llvm-dev and IRC.
>> 
>> 1) A MachineFunction pass to be executed POST-RA to collect the
information about the used Registers.
>> 2) An Immutable pass which will store reg usage info collected by
previous pass and return it whenever queried.
>> 3) A Target specific MachineFucntion pass that will use the register
usage info for available for call instrction to 	achive IPRA. This pass should
run at PRE-RA.
>> 
>> Relation among above passes:
>> 
>> 1) pass will store info to 2) pass as well use info for call
instruction found while processing.
>> 
>> 3) pass only requires to query information from 2) pass.
>> 
>> 
>> Questions
>> ========>> 
>>  Which pass is responsible for load/store of callee saved register, at
the begining of each function call? And how does it uses RegMask of call
instruction to generate load/store. I think Intra-procedural register allocator
is not responsible to generate load/store around the call site.
>> 
>> 				 /- - -> (A) - - -> (D)
>> 				/
>> 	(K)- - ->(T)- - -> (B) - - -> (E)
>> 				\
>> 				 \- - -> (C) - - -> (F)
>> 
>> So as per our discussion we would require following passes:
>> 
>> Suppose in given example call graph , register allocation for D is
completed now we have that information available So 3) pass while processing A ,
it would collect reg usage info for all callees and OR them and then it should
update A's regmask by going to parant procedure that actually calls A ??
> 
> No, Pass 3) is only looking for every call MI in A and updating the
associated regmask by replacing it with the information stored in the immutable
pass.
> What is the use of that ? Please be more specific.
I'm not sure I get the question. You describe 3 different passes at the
beginning, and it seems fairly obvious what is the responsibility of each.

This seems quite straightforward to me, so I'm not sure what to explain,
here is the logical sequence on D and A:

1) Codegen function D, MachineFunction post-RA: collect the register usage for
D. Store the new regmask in the immutable pass
2) Move to function A, perform ISel,  then run the MachineFunction pre-RA that
finds the call to D. Query the immutable pass and get the regmask for D. Update
the regmask associated with the call.

Done.


> 
> 
>> How reg mask details of call D would be used by Register allocator
while allocating register for A and also not generating load/store for register
being used by A in body of D as we have callee saved convention.
> 
> I expect all of that to be handled automatically when updating the regmask.
> Please elaborate your both comments, what ever you have think of it to be. 
> 
> 
>> 
>> How the pass responsible for generating load/store will optimize for
the child node of call graph where it does not require to load/store because
caller will not use register used by callee ? I mean how our IPRA will take care
of this?
> 
> I don't understand that.
> In above example call graph when pass 3) is executed for D it does not do
any work because there is not call to any other function in body of D but
actually in presence of IPRA there is no need to preserve (store/load) any
register in function D ( and also in other such leaf node of call graph). The
reason for the same is A now aware of register usage in D so it will not use any
register which intersect with D's register usage thus D need not to worry
about any thing.
> Is this make sense?
No. D has to obey the calling convention if it is not internal. So any
callee-saved register has to be ... saved.


-- 
Mehdi



> 
> 
>> 
>> In short I am not much clear with the method for using information to
get effect of IPRA without modifying Register allocator them self(i.e by
updating regMask of call instructions).
>> 
>> Also 1) pass and 3) pass are seem to intersecting for their work, for
example consider while scanning register usage info for T function the final
register usage info should be <all regs used by T> OR < reg usage info
A > OR <reg usage info B > OR < reg usage info C > because K
should not use any register which is used by T, A ,D, B, C, E, F with out
load/store the relevant paper also discuss this situation and suggest to fall
back to load/store approach. So as we move to upper region of the call graph it
is very likely that enough regiseters are not there to allocate.
> 
> The calling convention (for anything else than internal function) will
always have some callee-saved registers.
> If we have a deep call-graph of internal-only function, then we may
generate a lot of spill at the top. Somehow we may have to think about driving
some heuristic with PGO.
> 
> This kind of problem is addressed by this paper Register allocation across
procedure and module boundaries - http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=93551
<http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=93551>
> In this paper authors have tried to eliminate load/store only in call
intensive regions ( contrast to simple bottom up ) by analyzing call frequency
at compile time ( also has facility to plug in Profile info) and rest of the
call graph will follow normal register allocator. But yes we will think about
this later.
> 
> I suspect we can think about that a bit later. Let's focus on the
simple for now.
> 
> -- 
> Mehdi
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Please bear with my silly questions.
>> 
>> Sincerely,
>> Vivek
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 8:46 AM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at
gmail.com <mailto:vivekvpandya at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov
<mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>> wrote:
>> 
>> From: "vivek pandya" <vivekvpandya at gmail.com
<mailto:vivekvpandya at gmail.com>>
>> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov <mailto:hfinkel at
anl.gov>>
>> Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>, "Matthias Braun"
<matze at braunis.de <mailto:matze at braunis.de>>, "Mehdi
Amini" <mehdi.amini at apple.com <mailto:mehdi.amini at
apple.com>>, "Quentin Colombet" <qcolombet at apple.com
<mailto:qcolombet at apple.com>>
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 9:34:29 PM
>> 
>> Subject: Re: [GSoC 2016] Interprocedural Register Allocation -
Introduction and Feedback
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 3:53 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov
<mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>> wrote:
>> 
>> From: "vivek pandya" <vivekvpandya at gmail.com
<mailto:vivekvpandya at gmail.com>>
>> To: "Quentin Colombet" <qcolombet at apple.com
<mailto:qcolombet at apple.com>>
>> Cc: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov <mailto:hfinkel at
anl.gov>>, "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>, "Matthias Braun"
<matze at braunis.de <mailto:matze at braunis.de>>, "Mehdi
Amini" <mehdi.amini at apple.com <mailto:mehdi.amini at
apple.com>>
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 1:00:58 PM
>> Subject: Re: [GSoC 2016] Interprocedural Register Allocation -
Introduction and Feedback
>> 
>> Hello,
>> 
>> I have written following code to check each register if it is used by
machineFunction or not :
>> 
>> MachineRegisterInfo *MRI = &MF.getRegInfo();
>> 	TargetRegisterInfo *TRI = (TargetRegisterInfo
*)MF.getSubtarget().getRegisterInfo();
>> Some reason you can't use a const pointer here?
>> MCRegisterInfo is just used to get conventional name of register for
given target like AX, BX on X86.
>> 
>> 	const TargetMachine &TM = MF.getTarget();
>> 	const MCRegisterInfo *MCRI = TM.getMCRegisterInfo();
>> 	DEBUG(dbgs() << "Function Name : " <<
MF.getName() << "\n");
>> 
>> 	for(TargetRegisterInfo::regclass_iterator i = (*TRI).regclass_begin(),
e = (*TRI).regclass_end(); i != e; i++ ) {
>> 		for(TargetRegisterClass::iterator pregi = (*i)->begin(), prege =
(*i)->end(); pregi != prege; pregi++ ) {
>> 			DEBUG( dbgs() << "Physical Register : " <<
MCRI->getName(*pregi) << " is modified "<<
MRI->isPhysRegModified(*pregi) << " \n");
>> Try isPhysRegUsed.
>> ok 
>> 
>> 		}
>> 	}
>> 	DEBUG(dbgs() << "\n");
>> 
>> The pass which is executing this code is schedule POST-RA stage but
this gives me true for all registers i.e in each function all registers are
being used except EBP and some other similar, Is this a correct way to get
register usage information ? I think I have made some mistake please help.
>> 
>> You might look at the implementation of these functions in
lib/CodeGen/MachineRegisterInfo.cpp and figure out if they're returning true
because UsedPhysRegMask.test(PhysReg) is true or because
reg_nodbg_empty(*AliasReg) is true.
>> Yes that helped now I am getting actual register which have been used
by given function, but a little problem
>> The updated code is as shown below : 
>> for(TargetRegisterInfo::regclass_iterator i = (*TRI).regclass_begin(),
e = (*TRI).regclass_end(); i != e; i++ ) {
>> 		for(TargetRegisterClass::iterator pregi = (*i)->begin(), prege =
(*i)->end(); pregi != prege; pregi++ ) {
>> 			for (MCRegAliasIterator AliasReg(*pregi, TRI, true);
AliasReg.isValid(); ++AliasReg) {
>> 			    if (!MRI->reg_nodbg_empty(*AliasReg)) {
>> 			    	DEBUG( dbgs() << "Physical Register : "
<< MCRI->getName(*pregi) << " is used "<<
MRI->isPhysRegUsed(*pregi) << " \n");
>> 			    	break; // no need to process more alias
>> 			    }
>>  			 }	
>> 		}
>> 	} 
>> But here some registers are getting processed with in different classes
(unnecessary processing) Is this only way to iterate through all used register
(using RegClass iterator) ? Is there any way to avoid duplicate regs?
>> Of course currently I am just printing but next I am thinking to use a
map to track usage info , in that only distinct register info will be stored but
still due to loop structure I need to iterate through a single register 3 - 4
times making it time consuming.
>> Yes, I believe you can just do:
>> 
>>   for (unsigned Reg = 0; Reg < TRI->getNumRegs(); ++Reg) {
>> Oh yes thanks I just forgot that PhyReg starts at 0. 
>> 
>> 
>>  -Hal
>> 
>> 
>> -Vivek
>> 
>> 
>>  -Hal
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Vivek
>> 
>> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 11:42 PM, Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at
apple.com <mailto:qcolombet at apple.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> On May 18, 2016, at 11:00 AM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at
gmail.com <mailto:vivekvpandya at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Vivek Pandya
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 11:25 PM, Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at
apple.com <mailto:qcolombet at apple.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> On May 18, 2016, at 10:46 AM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at
gmail.com <mailto:vivekvpandya at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Vivek Pandya
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov
<mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>> wrote:
>> 
>> From: "vivek pandya" <vivekvpandya at gmail.com
<mailto:vivekvpandya at gmail.com>>
>> To: "Mehdi Amini" <mehdi.amini at apple.com
<mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>>
>> Cc: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov <mailto:hfinkel at
anl.gov>>, "Quentin Colombet" <qcolombet at apple.com
<mailto:qcolombet at apple.com>>, "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>, "Matthias
Braun" <matze at braunis.de <mailto:matze at braunis.de>>
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 3:15:03 AM
>> Subject: Re: [GSoC 2016] Interprocedural Register Allocation -
Introduction and Feedback
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Vivek Pandya
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 10:02 AM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at
gmail.com <mailto:vivekvpandya at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Vivek Pandya
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at
apple.com <mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> On May 10, 2016, at 6:06 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov
<mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: "vivek pandya" <vivekvpandya at gmail.com
<mailto:vivekvpandya at gmail.com>>
>> To: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>, "Tim Amini Golling"
<mehdi.amini at apple.com <mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>>,
"Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov <mailto:hfinkel at
anl.gov>>
>> Cc: "Quentin Colombet" <qcolombet at apple.com
<mailto:qcolombet at apple.com>>
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 2:59:16 PM
>> Subject: [GSoC 2016] Interprocedural Register Allocation - Introduction
and Feedback
>> 
>> Hello LLVM Community,
>> 
>> Sorry for delay as I was busy in final exams.
>> 
>> I am Vivek from India. Thanks for choosing my proposal for
Interprocedural Register Allocation (IPRA) in LLVM. Mehdi Amini and Hal Finkel
will be mentoring me for this project.
>> 
>> IPRA can reduce code size and runtime of programs by allocating
register across the module and procedure boundaries.
>> 
>> I have identified some old but effective research work on this area.
>> I want community's feedback for feasibility of these approach and I
am targeting to implement two of them during this project.
>> 
>> Here is list of the papers, I have read first two papers and I would
like to discuss those approach first, I will read other two paper then initiate
discussion for them as well. All I want is to find out a concrete implementation
plan before 23 May, 2016 and for that I need community's help.
>> 
>> 1) Compile time ----- Minimizing register usage penalty at procedure
calls - http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=53999
<http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=53999>
>> ====================================================================In
this approach intra-procedural register allocation is used as base but machine
code generation order is bottom up traversal of call graph and inter-procedural
effect is achieved by propagating register usage information of callee function
to caller (i.e child to parent in CallGraph) so that caller can use different
registers than callee and can save load store cost at procedure call, this is
not trivial as it seems due to recursive calls, library function usage etc. Also
for upper region of the graph in this technique available number of registers
might become zero in that case it should fall back to normal load store at
procedure call. Apart from these difficulties other difficulties have been
identified please follow this mail-chain
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/llvm-dev/HOYAXv3m1LY/discussion
<https://groups.google.com/d/topic/llvm-dev/HOYAXv3m1LY/discussion>
>> My mentor has already provided me a patch that alters code generation
order as per bottom up call graph traversal, I am working from that point now.
Any other help/suggestion is always welcomed.
>> 
>> 2) Link time ----- Global register allocation at link time -
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=989415
<http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=989415>
>> ====================================================================In
this particular approach (sort of true IPRA) registers will be reallocated (this
optimization will be optional if turned off still code will be compiled as per
intra-procedural allocation) at link time. Here modules are first complied as
per normal compilation but the object code is annotated with details so that
linker can build call graph and also calculate usage information at link time.
Compiler also write hints in object code that if particular variable is
allocated in some other register ( due to new allocation) then how the code
should be changed? Thus linker can use these information to decide which
variables (global) need to be in same register through out the program execution
and also according to register usage information in call graph which procedure
will not be active simultaneously so that locals for that procedures can be in
same registers with out load store at procedure calls.
>> For these particular method help me to analyze feasibility: 
>> 1) Can llvm collects following information at module level in
MachineIR? list of procedures in module, list of locals in procedures, list of
procedures that a particular procedure can call, and a list of the variables
this procedure references. Each entry in the last two lists includes an estimate
of the number of times the procedure is called or the variable is referenced in
each execution of this procedure
>> 2) Can llvm write informative commands to object files?
>> 3) Can LTO is capable of leveraging those commands? 
>> In terms of scoping the project for the summer, I definitely recommend
that you focus on (1) first. If you finish that, we can certainly move on to
other things.
>> 
>> I'll add +1 here, but I already wrote the same thing on IRC when
discussing with Vivek. True IPRA without a proper MachineModule infrastructure
won't be doable in my opinion (even with such infrastructure, it may not be
trivial in LLVM in general).
>> 
>> Regarding link time, note that any such a design would likely look much
different than in David Wall's paper however, because our LTO re-codegens
everything anyway. The paper says, "Finally, it keeps us honest as
designers of the system; once we postpone anything until link time, the
temptation is great to postpone everything, ..." - Well, we've
long-since succumb to that temptation when we LTO. C'est la vie.
>> 
>> +1 as well, our LTO will benefit naturally from the leaf-to-root
information propagation. ThinLTO will be more challenging/interesting though!
>> For the first part a mechanism similar to MachineModulePass would be
desirable but that may not be possible during this project, but if we can make
some sort of smaller version of that to suit our purpose.
>> I don't think we need to make any kind of MachineModulePass to make
this work. Once we alter the visitation order based on the CGSCC iteration
scheme, we can keep state in-between functions in the pre-existing hacky way
(using static members of the relevant function passes).
>>  Sorry my mistake here by first part I mean 1) requirement in the link
time approach.
>>  
>> I also don't see where/why we need a MachineModule(Pass) for the
CGSCC scheme, that said I'd rather avoid using a function pass with static
members, if we can have a ModuleAnalysis that is bookkeeping the results for
functions in the module and queries by the register allocator somehow.
>> Matthias/Quentin may have other inputs on this aspect.
>>  
>> @Hal do you mean to add a simple MachineFunction pass that will just
operate on register allocated function and prepare a BitVector to indicate which
register is being used by MachineFunction, and then use this pass as analysis
pass (i.e just simply return static BitVector for clobbered register when
register allocation for next function begins. This part is not much clear to me)
this thing can be done by scheduling a pass post register allocation in
lib/CodeGen/Passes.cpp
>> 
>> void TargetPassConfig::addMachinePasses() {
>> . 
>> .
>> .
>>   // Run pre-ra passes.
>>   addPreRegAlloc();
>> 
>>   // Run register allocation and passes that are tightly coupled with
it,
>>   // including phi elimination and scheduling.
>>   if (getOptimizeRegAlloc())
>>     addOptimizedRegAlloc(createRegAllocPass(true));
>>   else
>>     addFastRegAlloc(createRegAllocPass(false));
>> 
>>   // Run post-ra passes.
>>   addPostRegAlloc();
>> // Adding a new pass here which keeps register mask information across
function calls.
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> }
>> 
>> But this also requires current register allocators to use this
information in someway because RegMaskBits in LiveIntervalAnalysis.cpp is not
static across calls. I mean I am not clear for how to propagate static info to
Intra-procedural Register allocators (if possible without disturbing their code
)
>> First, my hope is that we won't need to change the register
allocators, as such, in order to make use of this information. Instead,
we'll simply be able to alter the register masks generated for the call
instructions. These masks will indicate fewer clobbers than might otherwise be
present based on the ABI because of information gathered during the codegen of
the callee. These masks are generally constructed by target based on the calling
convention. The PowerPC backend, for example, looks like this:
>> 
>>   // Add a register mask operand representing the call-preserved
registers.
>>   const TargetRegisterInfo *TRI = Subtarget.getRegisterInfo();
>>   const uint32_t *Mask >>      
TRI->getCallPreservedMask(DAG.getMachineFunction(), CallConv);
>>   assert(Mask && "Missing call preserved mask for calling
convention");
>>   Ops.push_back(DAG.getRegisterMask(Mask));
>> 
>> but it can be more complicated. If you look for uses of
'getRegisterMask' in Target/*/*ISelLowering.cpp, you'll see what I
mean. Regardless, the code ends up calling some method is the targets
TargetRegisterInfo subclass. These methods generally look something like this:
>> 
>> const uint32_t *
>> PPCRegisterInfo::getCallPreservedMask(const MachineFunction &MF,
>>                                       CallingConv::ID CC) const {
>>   const PPCSubtarget &Subtarget =
MF.getSubtarget<PPCSubtarget>();
>>   ...
>>   return TM.isPPC64() ? (Subtarget.hasAltivec() ?
CSR_SVR464_Altivec_RegMask
>>                                                 : CSR_SVR464_RegMask)
>>                       : (Subtarget.hasAltivec() ?
CSR_SVR432_Altivec_RegMask
>>                                                 : CSR_SVR432_RegMask);
>> }
>> 
>> In any case, the fundamental idea here is that, when someone calls
getCallPreservedMask in order to set the regmask on a call, we might not have to
use the CC at all. Instead, if we've already codegened the function, we
might use a cache of 'exact' register masks computed during codegen of
the potential callees instead.
>> I am thinking to add a simple Immutable pass MachineRegisterUsageInfo
similar to MachineBranchProbabilityInfo that can maintain
RegisterUsageInformation per function. Can it be simply done by using
UsedPhysRegMask from MachineRegisterInfo ??
>> 
>> No, like the comment said, UsedPhysRegMask gives only the registers
clobbered by calls:
>> // This bit vector represents all the registers clobbered by function
calls.
>> 
>> You want to build this information yourself on top of
MachineRegisterInfo::isPhysRegModified
>> Ok but then the time complexity will be O(n) n = number of physical
register on the target. Am I going correct?
>> 
>> Yes, this is correct.
>> 
>>   
>> Here getCallPreservedMask will call API provided by
MachineRegisterUsageInfo to avail the exact register mask but how it can know
that the function is already codegen or it will query each time when
getCallPreservedMask is called and of available MachineRegisterUsageInfo will
return the details otherwise simply return NULL.
>> So changes will be now in TargetRegisterInfo implementation for each
target right ??
>> 
>> 
>> In order to do this, I think we'll need to provide a function
callable from the target's getCallPreservedMask implementation, which can
return such an 'exact' regmask when available. I think we need to do it
this way for two reasons:
>> 
>>  1. Not all of the target code calls getCallPreservedMask, but
sometimes calls other similar target-specific functions (e.g.
getTLSCallPreservedMask).
>>  2. The targets need to opt-in to this behavior because only the target
can know that all register uses are really tagged correctly post
"pre-emit".
>> 
>> Because the target is free to introduce uses of registers at
essentially any time, we need to do the scanning for used registers after the
"pre-emit" passes run. This can be done by scheduling some simple
register-use scanning pass after the call to addPreEmitPass in
lib/CodeGen/Passes.cpp.
>> 
>> 
>> I think this also applies in someway to Mehdi Amini's idea to keep
a ModulePass for bookkeeping but then existing register allocators will be
required to change so that the code can query the ModulePass for RegMaskBits for
particular function.
>> I think that the simplest way to do this is to create an immutable
analysis pass (e.g. BasicAA) that keeps the cache of the computed register
masks. This is somewhat similar in spirit to how the 'AssumptionCache'
analysis works at the IR level. This analysis can then be created by
lib/CodeGen/Passes.cpp early, and then queried and passed around later by the
CodeGen/Target code. Because it is an immutable analysis, it won't get
destroyed until the very end, which is also important because, I imagine, it
will need to own the memory associated with the generated register masks.
>> 
>>  -Hal
>> 
>> Vivek
>> 
>> 
>> Yes for propagating register usage approach we don't need
MachineModulePass
>>  
>> Vivek
>> -- 
>> Mehdi
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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/20160524/33fa6c66/attachment-0001.html>

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com>
wrote:
>
> On May 24, 2016, at 10:08 PM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at
gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at
apple.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On May 24, 2016, at 9:17 PM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at
gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Mentors,
>>
>> Please help me to understand our plan to implement Interprocedural
>> Register allocator by propogating register usage info. While writing
this
>> mail I am considering all previous discussion over llvm-dev and IRC.
>>
>> 1) A MachineFunction pass to be executed POST-RA to collect the
>> information about the used Registers.
>> 2) An Immutable pass which will store reg usage info collected by
>> previous pass and return it whenever queried.
>> 3) A Target specific MachineFucntion pass that will use the register
>> usage info for available for call instrction to achive IPRA. This pass
>> should run at PRE-RA.
>>
>> Relation among above passes:
>>
>> 1) pass will store info to 2) pass as well use info for call
instruction
>> found while processing.
>>
>> 3) pass only requires to query information from 2) pass.
>>
>>
>> Questions
>> ========>>
>>  Which pass is responsible for load/store of callee saved register, at
>> the begining of each function call? And how does it uses RegMask of
call
>> instruction to generate load/store. I think Intra-procedural register
>> allocator is not responsible to generate load/store around the call
site.
>>
>> /- - -> (A) - - -> (D)
>> /
>> (K)- - ->(T)- - -> (B) - - -> (E)
>> \
>> \- - -> (C) - - -> (F)
>>
>> So as per our discussion we would require following passes:
>>
>> Suppose in given example call graph , register allocation for D is
>> completed now we have that information available So 3) pass while
>> processing A , it would collect reg usage info for all callees and OR
them
>> and then it should update A's regmask by going to parant procedure
that
>> actually calls A ??
>>
>>
>> No, Pass 3) is only looking for every call MI in A and updating the
>> associated regmask by replacing it with the information stored in the
>> immutable pass.
>>
> What is the use of that ? Please be more specific.
>
>
> I'm not sure I get the question. You describe 3 different passes at the
> beginning, and it seems fairly obvious what is the responsibility of each.
>
> This seems quite straightforward to me, so I'm not sure what to
explain,
> here is the logical sequence on D and A:
>
> 1) Codegen function D, MachineFunction post-RA: collect the register usage
> for D. Store the new regmask in the immutable pass
> 2) Move to function A, perform ISel,  then run the MachineFunction pre-RA
> that finds the call to D. Query the immutable pass and get the regmask for
> D. Update the regmask associated with the call.
>
> Done.
>
I understand the sequence we discussed till now but as I am also reading
literature about IPRA so I am confused that how this would remove
load/store of registers (so that callee can clobber it with out worrying
about caller's content in registers) and also how caller will not use
register used by callee. So this boils down to question what magic is done
by just updating reg mask at callsite and we do not eve require to intimate
this to intra-procedural register allocator, this also means that some
where a code is written that is responsible for inserting store/load for
register so that callee can preserve register but in presence of IPRA   how
it will not add those store/load?

It seems that my questions have confused Mehdi Amini :P
Other masters please help us !

>
>
>
>
>>
>> How reg mask details of call D would be used by Register allocator
while
>> allocating register for A and also not generating load/store for
register
>> being used by A in body of D as we have callee saved convention.
>>
>>
>> I expect all of that to be handled automatically when updating the
>> regmask.
>>
> Please elaborate your both comments, what ever you have think of it to be.
>
>
>>
>>
>> How the pass responsible for generating load/store will optimize for
the
>> child node of call graph where it does not require to load/store
because
>> caller will not use register used by callee ? I mean how our IPRA will
take
>> care of this?
>>
>>
>> I don't understand that.
>>
> In above example call graph when pass 3) is executed for D it does not do
> any work because there is not call to any other function in body of D but
> actually in presence of IPRA there is no need to preserve (store/load) any
> register in function D ( and also in other such leaf node of call graph).
> The reason for the same is A now aware of register usage in D so it will
> not use any register which intersect with D's register usage thus D
need
> not to worry about any thing.
> Is this make sense?
>
>
> No. D has to obey the calling convention if it is not internal. So any
> callee-saved register has to be ... saved.
>
Why is that required when caller of D does not use any register used by D?
>
>
> --
> Mehdi
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> In short I am not much clear with the method for using information to
get
>> effect of IPRA without modifying Register allocator them self(i.e by
>> updating regMask of call instructions).
>>
>> Also 1) pass and 3) pass are seem to intersecting for their work, for
>> example consider while scanning register usage info for T function the
>> final register usage info should be <all regs used by T> OR <
reg usage
>> info A > OR <reg usage info B > OR < reg usage info C >
because K should
>> not use any register which is used by T, A ,D, B, C, E, F with out
>> load/store the relevant paper also discuss this situation and suggest
to
>> fall back to load/store approach. So as we move to upper region of the
call
>> graph it is very likely that enough regiseters are not there to
allocate.
>>
>>
>> The calling convention (for anything else than internal function) will
>> always have some callee-saved registers.
>> If we have a deep call-graph of internal-only function, then we may
>> generate a lot of spill at the top. Somehow we may have to think about
>> driving some heuristic with PGO.
>>
>
> This kind of problem is addressed by this paper Register allocation across
> procedure and module boundaries - http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=93551
>
> In this paper authors have tried to eliminate load/store only in call
> intensive regions ( contrast to simple bottom up ) by analyzing call
> frequency at compile time ( also has facility to plug in Profile info) and
> rest of the call graph will follow normal register allocator. But yes we
> will think about this later.
>
> I suspect we can think about that a bit later. Let's focus on the
simple
>> for now.
>>
>> --
>> Mehdi
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Please bear with my silly questions.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Vivek
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 8:46 AM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at
gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at
anl.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> *From: *"vivek pandya" <vivekvpandya at
gmail.com>
>>>> *To: *"Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>
>>>> *Cc: *"llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>,
"Matthias Braun" <
>>>> matze at braunis.de>, "Mehdi Amini"
<mehdi.amini at apple.com>, "Quentin
>>>> Colombet" <qcolombet at apple.com>
>>>> *Sent: *Tuesday, May 24, 2016 9:34:29 PM
>>>>
>>>> *Subject: *Re: [GSoC 2016] Interprocedural Register Allocation
-
>>>> Introduction and Feedback
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 3:53 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at
anl.gov> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> *From: *"vivek pandya" <vivekvpandya at
gmail.com>
>>>>> *To: *"Quentin Colombet" <qcolombet at
apple.com>
>>>>> *Cc: *"Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>,
"llvm-dev" <
>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Matthias Braun"
<matze at braunis.de>, "Mehdi
>>>>> Amini" <mehdi.amini at apple.com>
>>>>> *Sent: *Tuesday, May 24, 2016 1:00:58 PM
>>>>> *Subject: *Re: [GSoC 2016] Interprocedural Register
Allocation -
>>>>> Introduction and Feedback
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have written following code to check each register if it
is used by
>>>>> machineFunction or not :
>>>>>
>>>>> MachineRegisterInfo *MRI = &MF.getRegInfo();
>>>>> TargetRegisterInfo *TRI = (TargetRegisterInfo
>>>>> *)MF.getSubtarget().getRegisterInfo();
>>>>>
>>>>> Some reason you can't use a const pointer here?
>>>>>
>>>> MCRegisterInfo is just used to get conventional name of
register for
>>>> given target like AX, BX on X86.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> const TargetMachine &TM = MF.getTarget();
>>>>> const MCRegisterInfo *MCRI = TM.getMCRegisterInfo();
>>>>> DEBUG(dbgs() << "Function Name : " <<
MF.getName() << "\n");
>>>>>
>>>>> for(TargetRegisterInfo::regclass_iterator i =
(*TRI).regclass_begin(),
>>>>> e = (*TRI).regclass_end(); i != e; i++ ) {
>>>>> for(TargetRegisterClass::iterator pregi = (*i)->begin(),
prege >>>>> (*i)->end(); pregi != prege; pregi++ ) {
>>>>> DEBUG( dbgs() << "Physical Register : "
<< MCRI->getName(*pregi) << "
>>>>> is modified "<<
MRI->isPhysRegModified(*pregi) << " \n");
>>>>>
>>>>> Try isPhysRegUsed.
>>>>>
>>>> ok
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> }
>>>>> }
>>>>> DEBUG(dbgs() << "\n");
>>>>>
>>>>> The pass which is executing this code is schedule POST-RA
stage but
>>>>> this gives me true for all registers i.e in each function
all registers are
>>>>> being used except EBP and some other similar, Is this a
correct way to get
>>>>> register usage information ? I think I have made some
mistake please help.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You might look at the implementation of these functions in
>>>>> lib/CodeGen/MachineRegisterInfo.cpp and figure out if
they're returning
>>>>> true because UsedPhysRegMask.test(PhysReg) is true or
because
>>>>> reg_nodbg_empty(*AliasReg) is true.
>>>>>
>>>> Yes that helped now I am getting actual register which have
been used
>>>> by given function, but a little problem
>>>> The updated code is as shown below :
>>>> for(TargetRegisterInfo::regclass_iterator i =
(*TRI).regclass_begin(),
>>>> e = (*TRI).regclass_end(); i != e; i++ ) {
>>>> for(TargetRegisterClass::iterator pregi = (*i)->begin(),
prege >>>> (*i)->end(); pregi != prege; pregi++ ) {
>>>> for (MCRegAliasIterator AliasReg(*pregi, TRI, true);
>>>> AliasReg.isValid(); ++AliasReg) {
>>>>    if (!MRI->reg_nodbg_empty(*AliasReg)) {
>>>>     DEBUG( dbgs() << "Physical Register : "
<< MCRI->getName(*pregi)
>>>> << " is used "<<
MRI->isPhysRegUsed(*pregi) << " \n");
>>>>     break; // no need to process more alias
>>>>    }
>>>>   }
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>> But here some registers are getting processed with in different
classes
>>>> (unnecessary processing) Is this only way to iterate through
all used
>>>> register (using RegClass iterator) ? Is there any way to avoid
duplicate
>>>> regs?
>>>> Of course currently I am just printing but next I am thinking
to use a
>>>> map to track usage info , in that only distinct register info
will be
>>>> stored but still due to loop structure I need to iterate
through a single
>>>> register 3 - 4 times making it time consuming.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I believe you can just do:
>>>>
>>>>   for (unsigned Reg = 0; Reg < TRI->getNumRegs(); ++Reg)
{
>>>>
>>> Oh yes thanks I just forgot that PhyReg starts at 0.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  -Hal
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Vivek
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  -Hal
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Vivek
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 11:42 PM, Quentin Colombet <
>>>>> qcolombet at apple.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 18, 2016, at 11:00 AM, vivek pandya
<vivekvpandya at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Vivek Pandya*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 11:25 PM, Quentin Colombet <
>>>>>> qcolombet at apple.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On May 18, 2016, at 10:46 AM, vivek pandya
<vivekvpandya at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Vivek Pandya*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Hal Finkel
<hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *From: *"vivek pandya"
<vivekvpandya at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> *To: *"Mehdi Amini" <mehdi.amini
at apple.com>
>>>>>>>> *Cc: *"Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at
anl.gov>, "Quentin Colombet" <
>>>>>>>> qcolombet at apple.com>,
"llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>,
>>>>>>>> "Matthias Braun" <matze at
braunis.de>
>>>>>>>> *Sent: *Wednesday, May 11, 2016 3:15:03 AM
>>>>>>>> *Subject: *Re: [GSoC 2016] Interprocedural
Register Allocation -
>>>>>>>> Introduction and Feedback
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Vivek Pandya*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 10:02 AM, vivek pandya
<
>>>>>>>> vivekvpandya at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Vivek Pandya*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Mehdi
Amini <
>>>>>>>>> mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On May 10, 2016, at 6:06 PM, Hal Finkel
<hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *From: *"vivek pandya"
<vivekvpandya at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> *To: *"llvm-dev" <llvm-dev
at lists.llvm.org>, "Tim Amini Golling" <
>>>>>>>>>> mehdi.amini at apple.com>, "Hal
Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>
>>>>>>>>>> *Cc: *"Quentin Colombet"
<qcolombet at apple.com>
>>>>>>>>>> *Sent: *Tuesday, May 10, 2016 2:59:16
PM
>>>>>>>>>> *Subject: *[GSoC 2016] Interprocedural
Register Allocation -
>>>>>>>>>> Introduction and Feedback
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hello LLVM Community,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sorry for delay as I was busy in final
exams.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am Vivek from India. Thanks for
choosing my proposal for
>>>>>>>>>> Interprocedural Register Allocation
(IPRA) in LLVM. Mehdi Amini and Hal
>>>>>>>>>> Finkel will be mentoring me for this
project.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> IPRA can reduce code size and runtime
of programs by allocating
>>>>>>>>>> register across the module and
procedure boundaries.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have identified some old but
effective research work on this
>>>>>>>>>> area.
>>>>>>>>>> I want community's feedback for
feasibility of these approach and
>>>>>>>>>> I am targeting to implement two of them
during this project.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Here is list of the papers, I have read
first two papers and I
>>>>>>>>>> would like to discuss those approach
first, I will read other two paper
>>>>>>>>>> then initiate discussion for them as
well. All I want is to find out a
>>>>>>>>>> concrete implementation plan before 23
May, 2016 and for that I need
>>>>>>>>>> community's help.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1) Compile time ----- Minimizing
register usage penalty at
>>>>>>>>>> procedure calls -
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=53999
>>>>>>>>>>
====================================================================In
>>>>>>>>>> this approach intra-procedural register
allocation is used as base but
>>>>>>>>>> machine code generation order is bottom
up traversal of call graph and
>>>>>>>>>> inter-procedural effect is achieved by
propagating register usage
>>>>>>>>>> information of callee function to
caller (i.e child to parent in CallGraph)
>>>>>>>>>> so that caller can use different
registers than callee and can save load
>>>>>>>>>> store cost at procedure call, this is
not trivial as it seems due to
>>>>>>>>>> recursive calls, library function usage
etc. Also for upper region of the
>>>>>>>>>> graph in this technique available
number of registers might become zero in
>>>>>>>>>> that case it should fall back to normal
load store at procedure call. Apart
>>>>>>>>>> from these difficulties other
difficulties have been identified please
>>>>>>>>>> follow this mail-chain
>>>>>>>>>>
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/llvm-dev/HOYAXv3m1LY/discussion
>>>>>>>>>> My mentor has already provided me a
patch that alters code
>>>>>>>>>> generation order as per bottom up call
graph traversal, I am working from
>>>>>>>>>> that point now. Any other
help/suggestion is always welcomed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2) Link time ----- Global register
allocation at link time -
>>>>>>>>>>
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=989415
>>>>>>>>>>
====================================================================In
>>>>>>>>>> this particular approach (sort of true
IPRA) registers will be reallocated
>>>>>>>>>> (this optimization will be optional if
turned off still code will be
>>>>>>>>>> compiled as per intra-procedural
allocation) at link time. Here modules are
>>>>>>>>>> first complied as per normal
compilation but the object code is annotated
>>>>>>>>>> with details so that linker can build
call graph and also calculate usage
>>>>>>>>>> information at link time. Compiler also
write hints in object code that if
>>>>>>>>>> particular variable is allocated in
some other register ( due to new
>>>>>>>>>> allocation) then how the code should be
changed? Thus linker can use these
>>>>>>>>>> information to decide which variables
(global) need to be in same register
>>>>>>>>>> through out the program execution and
also according to register usage
>>>>>>>>>> information in call graph which
procedure will not be active simultaneously
>>>>>>>>>> so that locals for that procedures can
be in same registers with out load
>>>>>>>>>> store at procedure calls.
>>>>>>>>>> For these particular method help me to
analyze feasibility:
>>>>>>>>>> 1) Can llvm collects following
information at module level in
>>>>>>>>>> MachineIR? list of procedures in
module, list of locals in procedures, list
>>>>>>>>>> of procedures that a particular
procedure can call, and a list of the
>>>>>>>>>> variables this procedure references.
Each entry in the last two lists
>>>>>>>>>> includes an estimate of the number of
times the procedure is called or the
>>>>>>>>>> variable is referenced in each
execution of this procedure
>>>>>>>>>> 2) Can llvm write informative commands
to object files?
>>>>>>>>>> 3) Can LTO is capable of leveraging
those commands?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In terms of scoping the project for the
summer, I definitely
>>>>>>>>>> recommend that you focus on (1) first.
If you finish that, we can certainly
>>>>>>>>>> move on to other things.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'll add +1 here, but I already
wrote the same thing on IRC when
>>>>>>>>>> discussing with Vivek. True IPRA
without a proper MachineModule
>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure won't be doable in
my opinion (even with such
>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure, it may not be trivial
in LLVM in general).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regarding link time, note that any such
a design would likely
>>>>>>>>>> look much different than in David
Wall's paper however, because our LTO
>>>>>>>>>> re-codegens everything anyway. The
paper says, "Finally, it keeps us honest
>>>>>>>>>> as designers of the system; once we
postpone anything until link time, the
>>>>>>>>>> temptation is great to postpone
everything, ..." - Well, we've long-since
>>>>>>>>>> succumb to that temptation when we LTO.
C'est la vie.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +1 as well, our LTO will benefit
naturally from the leaf-to-root
>>>>>>>>>> information propagation. ThinLTO will
be more challenging/interesting
>>>>>>>>>> though!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For the first part a mechanism similar
to MachineModulePass would
>>>>>>>>>> be desirable but that may not be
possible during this project, but if we
>>>>>>>>>> can make some sort of smaller version
of that to suit our purpose.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't think we need to make any
kind of MachineModulePass to
>>>>>>>>>> make this work. Once we alter the
visitation order based on the CGSCC
>>>>>>>>>> iteration scheme, we can keep state
in-between functions in the
>>>>>>>>>> pre-existing hacky way (using static
members of the relevant function
>>>>>>>>>> passes).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  Sorry my mistake here by first part I
mean 1) requirement in
>>>>>>>>> the link time approach.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I also don't see where/why we need
a MachineModule(Pass) for the
>>>>>>>>>> CGSCC scheme, that said I'd rather
avoid using a function pass with static
>>>>>>>>>> members, if we can have a
ModuleAnalysis that is bookkeeping the results
>>>>>>>>>> for functions in the module and queries
by the register allocator somehow.
>>>>>>>>>> Matthias/Quentin may have other inputs
on this aspect.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> @Hal do you mean to add a simple
MachineFunction pass that will
>>>>>>>> just operate on register allocated function and
prepare a BitVector to
>>>>>>>> indicate which register is being used by
MachineFunction, and then use this
>>>>>>>> pass as analysis pass (i.e just simply return
static BitVector for
>>>>>>>> clobbered register when register allocation for
next function begins. This
>>>>>>>> part is not much clear to me) this thing can be
done by scheduling a pass
>>>>>>>> post register allocation in
lib/CodeGen/Passes.cpp
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> void TargetPassConfig::addMachinePasses() {
>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>   // Run pre-ra passes.
>>>>>>>>   addPreRegAlloc();
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   // Run register allocation and passes that
are tightly coupled
>>>>>>>> with it,
>>>>>>>>   // including phi elimination and scheduling.
>>>>>>>>   if (getOptimizeRegAlloc())
>>>>>>>>    
addOptimizedRegAlloc(createRegAllocPass(true));
>>>>>>>>   else
>>>>>>>>     addFastRegAlloc(createRegAllocPass(false));
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   // Run post-ra passes.
>>>>>>>>   addPostRegAlloc();
>>>>>>>> // Adding a new pass here which keeps register
mask information
>>>>>>>> across function calls.
>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But this also requires current register
allocators to use this
>>>>>>>> information in someway because RegMaskBits in
LiveIntervalAnalysis.cpp is
>>>>>>>> not static across calls. I mean I am not clear
for how to propagate static
>>>>>>>> info to Intra-procedural Register allocators
(if possible without
>>>>>>>> disturbing their code )
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> First, my hope is that we won't need to
change the register
>>>>>>>> allocators, as such, in order to make use of
this information. Instead,
>>>>>>>> we'll simply be able to alter the register
masks generated for the call
>>>>>>>> instructions. These masks will indicate fewer
clobbers than might otherwise
>>>>>>>> be present based on the ABI because of
information gathered during the
>>>>>>>> codegen of the callee. These masks are
generally constructed by target
>>>>>>>> based on the calling convention. The PowerPC
backend, for example, looks
>>>>>>>> like this:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   // Add a register mask operand representing
the call-preserved
>>>>>>>> registers.
>>>>>>>>   const TargetRegisterInfo *TRI =
Subtarget.getRegisterInfo();
>>>>>>>>   const uint32_t *Mask
>>>>>>>>      
TRI->getCallPreservedMask(DAG.getMachineFunction(),
>>>>>>>> CallConv);
>>>>>>>>   assert(Mask && "Missing call
preserved mask for calling
>>>>>>>> convention");
>>>>>>>>   Ops.push_back(DAG.getRegisterMask(Mask));
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> but it can be more complicated. If you look for
uses of
>>>>>>>> 'getRegisterMask' in
Target/*/*ISelLowering.cpp, you'll see what I mean.
>>>>>>>> Regardless, the code ends up calling some
method is the targets
>>>>>>>> TargetRegisterInfo subclass. These methods
generally look something like
>>>>>>>> this:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> const uint32_t *
>>>>>>>> PPCRegisterInfo::getCallPreservedMask(const
MachineFunction &MF,
>>>>>>>>                                      
CallingConv::ID CC) const {
>>>>>>>>   const PPCSubtarget &Subtarget =
MF.getSubtarget<PPCSubtarget>();
>>>>>>>>   ...
>>>>>>>>   return TM.isPPC64() ? (Subtarget.hasAltivec()
?
>>>>>>>> CSR_SVR464_Altivec_RegMask
>>>>>>>>                                                
:
>>>>>>>> CSR_SVR464_RegMask)
>>>>>>>>                       : (Subtarget.hasAltivec()
?
>>>>>>>> CSR_SVR432_Altivec_RegMask
>>>>>>>>                                                
:
>>>>>>>> CSR_SVR432_RegMask);
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In any case, the fundamental idea here is that,
when someone calls
>>>>>>>> getCallPreservedMask in order to set the
regmask on a call, we might not
>>>>>>>> have to use the CC at all. Instead, if
we've already codegened the
>>>>>>>> function, we might use a cache of
'exact' register masks computed during
>>>>>>>> codegen of the potential callees instead.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am thinking to add a simple Immutable pass
>>>>>>> MachineRegisterUsageInfo similar to
MachineBranchProbabilityInfo that can
>>>>>>> maintain RegisterUsageInformation per function. Can
it be simply done by
>>>>>>> using UsedPhysRegMask from MachineRegisterInfo ??
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, like the comment said, UsedPhysRegMask gives
only the registers
>>>>>>> clobbered by calls:
>>>>>>> // This bit vector represents all the registers
clobbered by
>>>>>>> function calls.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You want to build this information yourself on top
of
>>>>>>> MachineRegisterInfo::isPhysRegModified
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok but then the time complexity will be O(n) n = number
of physical
>>>>>> register on the target. Am I going correct?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, this is correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here getCallPreservedMask will call API provided by
>>>>>>> MachineRegisterUsageInfo to avail the exact
register mask but how it can
>>>>>>> know that the function is already codegen or it
will query each time when
>>>>>>> getCallPreservedMask is called and of available
MachineRegisterUsageInfo
>>>>>>> will return the details otherwise simply return
NULL.
>>>>>>> So changes will be now in TargetRegisterInfo
implementation for each
>>>>>>> target right ??
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In order to do this, I think we'll need to
provide a function
>>>>>>>> callable from the target's
getCallPreservedMask implementation, which can
>>>>>>>> return such an 'exact' regmask when
available. I think we need to do it
>>>>>>>> this way for two reasons:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  1. Not all of the target code calls
getCallPreservedMask, but
>>>>>>>> sometimes calls other similar target-specific
functions (e.g.
>>>>>>>> getTLSCallPreservedMask).
>>>>>>>>  2. The targets need to opt-in to this behavior
because only the
>>>>>>>> target can know that all register uses are
really tagged correctly post
>>>>>>>> "pre-emit".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because the target is free to introduce uses of
registers at
>>>>>>>> essentially any time, we need to do the
scanning for used registers after
>>>>>>>> the "pre-emit" passes run. This can
be done by scheduling some simple
>>>>>>>> register-use scanning pass after the call to
addPreEmitPass in
>>>>>>>> lib/CodeGen/Passes.cpp.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think this also applies in someway to Mehdi
Amini's idea to keep
>>>>>>>> a ModulePass for bookkeeping but then existing
register allocators will be
>>>>>>>> required to change so that the code can query
the ModulePass for
>>>>>>>> RegMaskBits for particular function.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think that the simplest way to do this is to
create an immutable
>>>>>>>> analysis pass (e.g. BasicAA) that keeps the
cache of the computed register
>>>>>>>> masks. This is somewhat similar in spirit to
how the 'AssumptionCache'
>>>>>>>> analysis works at the IR level. This analysis
can then be created by
>>>>>>>> lib/CodeGen/Passes.cpp early, and then queried
and passed around later by
>>>>>>>> the CodeGen/Target code. Because it is an
immutable analysis, it won't get
>>>>>>>> destroyed until the very end, which is also
important because, I imagine,
>>>>>>>> it will need to own the memory associated with
the generated register masks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  -Hal
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Vivek
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes for propagating register usage
approach we don't need
>>>>>>>>> MachineModulePass
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Vivek
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Mehdi
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> 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/20160525/bc8ca992/attachment.html>

Sent from my iPhone
> On May 24, 2016, at 11:04 PM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at
gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at
apple.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On May 24, 2016, at 10:08 PM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at
gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at
apple.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On May 24, 2016, at 9:17 PM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya
at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dear Mentors,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please help me to understand our plan to implement
Interprocedural Register allocator by propogating register usage info. While
writing this mail I am considering all previous discussion over llvm-dev and
IRC.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1) A MachineFunction pass to be executed POST-RA to collect
the information about the used Registers.
>>>>> 2) An Immutable pass which will store reg usage info
collected by previous pass and return it whenever queried.
>>>>> 3) A Target specific MachineFucntion pass that will use the
register usage info for available for call instrction to 	achive IPRA. This pass
should run at PRE-RA.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Relation among above passes:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1) pass will store info to 2) pass as well use info for
call instruction found while processing.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 3) pass only requires to query information from 2) pass.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Questions
>>>>> ========>>>>> 
>>>>>  Which pass is responsible for load/store of callee saved
register, at the begining of each function call? And how does it uses RegMask of
call instruction to generate load/store. I think Intra-procedural register
allocator is not responsible to generate load/store around the call site.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 				 /- - -> (A) - - -> (D)
>>>>> 				/
>>>>> 	(K)- - ->(T)- - -> (B) - - -> (E)
>>>>> 				\
>>>>> 				 \- - -> (C) - - -> (F)
>>>>> 
>>>>> So as per our discussion we would require following passes:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Suppose in given example call graph , register allocation
for D is completed now we have that information available So 3) pass while
processing A , it would collect reg usage info for all callees and OR them and
then it should update A's regmask by going to parant procedure that actually
calls A ??
>>>> 
>>>> No, Pass 3) is only looking for every call MI in A and updating
the associated regmask by replacing it with the information stored in the
immutable pass.
>>> What is the use of that ? Please be more specific.
>> 
>> I'm not sure I get the question. You describe 3 different passes at
the beginning, and it seems fairly obvious what is the responsibility of each.
>> 
>> This seems quite straightforward to me, so I'm not sure what to
explain, here is the logical sequence on D and A:
>> 
>> 1) Codegen function D, MachineFunction post-RA: collect the register
usage for D. Store the new regmask in the immutable pass
>> 2) Move to function A, perform ISel,  then run the MachineFunction
pre-RA that finds the call to D. Query the immutable pass and get the regmask
for D. Update the regmask associated with the call.
>> 
>> Done.
> I understand the sequence we discussed till now but as I am also reading
literature about IPRA so I am confused that how this would remove load/store of
registers (so that callee can clobber it with out worrying about caller's
content in registers)
From the beginning I told you that it is not true IPRA on this aspect: callees
have to preserve callee-saved register according to the CC, unless internal.


> and also how caller will not use register used by callee.
Caller can use them, just like it does now: by saving restoring them
before/after the call if it does.
> So this boils down to question what magic is done by just updating reg mask
at callsite and we do not eve require to intimate this to intra-procedural
register allocator,
Ask yourself how the RA knows how to deal with what to save around calls in
general (hint: think about what is the use of regmask).

> this also means that some where a code is written that is responsible for
inserting store/load for register so that callee can preserve register but in
presence of IPRA   how it will not add those store/load?
What we're doing here is purely an optimization of the calling convention.
This does not have to be more intrusive...


> 
> It seems that my questions have confused Mehdi Amini :P
> Other masters please help us !
>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> How reg mask details of call D would be used by Register
allocator while allocating register for A and also not generating load/store for
register being used by A in body of D as we have callee saved convention.
>>>> 
>>>> I expect all of that to be handled automatically when updating
the regmask.
>>> Please elaborate your both comments, what ever you have think of it
to be.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> How the pass responsible for generating load/store will
optimize for the child node of call graph where it does not require to
load/store because caller will not use register used by callee ? I mean how our
IPRA will take care of this?
>>>> 
>>>> I don't understand that.
>>> In above example call graph when pass 3) is executed for D it does
not do any work because there is not call to any other function in body of D but
actually in presence of IPRA there is no need to preserve (store/load) any
register in function D ( and also in other such leaf node of call graph). The
reason for the same is A now aware of register usage in D so it will not use any
register which intersect with D's register usage thus D need not to worry
about any thing.
>>> Is this make sense?
>> 
>> No. D has to obey the calling convention if it is not internal. So any
callee-saved register has to be ... saved.
> Why is that required when caller of D does not use any register used by D? 
You don't know about the callers when you are doing codegen for D.
Again: we're not trying to perform pure IPRA here.

-- 
Mehdi

>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Mehdi
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> In short I am not much clear with the method for using
information to get effect of IPRA without modifying Register allocator them
self(i.e by updating regMask of call instructions).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Also 1) pass and 3) pass are seem to intersecting for their
work, for example consider while scanning register usage info for T function the
final register usage info should be <all regs used by T> OR < reg usage
info A > OR <reg usage info B > OR < reg usage info C > because K
should not use any register which is used by T, A ,D, B, C, E, F with out
load/store the relevant paper also discuss this situation and suggest to fall
back to load/store approach. So as we move to upper region of the call graph it
is very likely that enough regiseters are not there to allocate.
>>>> 
>>>> The calling convention (for anything else than internal
function) will always have some callee-saved registers.
>>>> If we have a deep call-graph of internal-only function, then we
may generate a lot of spill at the top. Somehow we may have to think about
driving some heuristic with PGO.
>>> 
>>> This kind of problem is addressed by this paper Register allocation
across procedure and module boundaries - http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=93551
>>> In this paper authors have tried to eliminate load/store only in
call intensive regions ( contrast to simple bottom up ) by analyzing call
frequency at compile time ( also has facility to plug in Profile info) and rest
of the call graph will follow normal register allocator. But yes we will think
about this later.
>>> 
>>>> I suspect we can think about that a bit later. Let's focus
on the simple for now.
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Mehdi
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please bear with my silly questions.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>> Vivek
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 8:46 AM, vivek pandya
<vivekvpandya at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Hal Finkel
<hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> From: "vivek pandya" <vivekvpandya at
gmail.com>
>>>>>>> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at
anl.gov>
>>>>>>> Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>, "Matthias Braun" <matze at braunis.de>,
"Mehdi Amini" <mehdi.amini at apple.com>, "Quentin
Colombet" <qcolombet at apple.com>
>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 9:34:29 PM
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [GSoC 2016] Interprocedural Register
Allocation - Introduction and Feedback
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 3:53 AM, Hal Finkel
<hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> From: "vivek pandya" <vivekvpandya
at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> To: "Quentin Colombet" <qcolombet
at apple.com>
>>>>>>>> Cc: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at
anl.gov>, "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>,
"Matthias Braun" <matze at braunis.de>, "Mehdi Amini"
<mehdi.amini at apple.com>
>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 1:00:58 PM
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [GSoC 2016] Interprocedural
Register Allocation - Introduction and Feedback
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I have written following code to check each
register if it is used by machineFunction or not :
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> MachineRegisterInfo *MRI =
&MF.getRegInfo();
>>>>>>>> 	TargetRegisterInfo *TRI = (TargetRegisterInfo
*)MF.getSubtarget().getRegisterInfo();
>>>>>>>> Some reason you can't use a const pointer
here?
>>>>>>> MCRegisterInfo is just used to get conventional
name of register for given target like AX, BX on X86.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 	const TargetMachine &TM = MF.getTarget();
>>>>>>>> 	const MCRegisterInfo *MCRI =
TM.getMCRegisterInfo();
>>>>>>>> 	DEBUG(dbgs() << "Function Name :
" << MF.getName() << "\n");
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 	for(TargetRegisterInfo::regclass_iterator i =
(*TRI).regclass_begin(), e = (*TRI).regclass_end(); i != e; i++ ) {
>>>>>>>> 		for(TargetRegisterClass::iterator pregi =
(*i)->begin(), prege = (*i)->end(); pregi != prege; pregi++ ) {
>>>>>>>> 			DEBUG( dbgs() << "Physical
Register : " << MCRI->getName(*pregi) << " is modified
"<< MRI->isPhysRegModified(*pregi) << " \n");
>>>>>>>> Try isPhysRegUsed.
>>>>>>> ok 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 		}
>>>>>>>> 	}
>>>>>>>> 	DEBUG(dbgs() << "\n");
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The pass which is executing this code is
schedule POST-RA stage but this gives me true for all registers i.e in each
function all registers are being used except EBP and some other similar, Is this
a correct way to get register usage information ? I think I have made some
mistake please help.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> You might look at the implementation of these
functions in lib/CodeGen/MachineRegisterInfo.cpp and figure out if they're
returning true because UsedPhysRegMask.test(PhysReg) is true or because
reg_nodbg_empty(*AliasReg) is true.
>>>>>>> Yes that helped now I am getting actual register
which have been used by given function, but a little problem
>>>>>>> The updated code is as shown below : 
>>>>>>> for(TargetRegisterInfo::regclass_iterator i =
(*TRI).regclass_begin(), e = (*TRI).regclass_end(); i != e; i++ ) {
>>>>>>> 		for(TargetRegisterClass::iterator pregi =
(*i)->begin(), prege = (*i)->end(); pregi != prege; pregi++ ) {
>>>>>>> 			for (MCRegAliasIterator AliasReg(*pregi, TRI,
true); AliasReg.isValid(); ++AliasReg) {
>>>>>>> 			    if (!MRI->reg_nodbg_empty(*AliasReg)) {
>>>>>>> 			    	DEBUG( dbgs() << "Physical
Register : " << MCRI->getName(*pregi) << " is used
"<< MRI->isPhysRegUsed(*pregi) << " \n");
>>>>>>> 			    	break; // no need to process more alias
>>>>>>> 			    }
>>>>>>>  			 }	
>>>>>>> 		}
>>>>>>> 	} 
>>>>>>> But here some registers are getting processed with
in different classes (unnecessary processing) Is this only way to iterate
through all used register (using RegClass iterator) ? Is there any way to avoid
duplicate regs?
>>>>>>> Of course currently I am just printing but next I
am thinking to use a map to track usage info , in that only distinct register
info will be stored but still due to loop structure I need to iterate through a
single register 3 - 4 times making it time consuming.
>>>>>>> Yes, I believe you can just do:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>   for (unsigned Reg = 0; Reg <
TRI->getNumRegs(); ++Reg) {
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Oh yes thanks I just forgot that PhyReg starts at 0. 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  -Hal
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -Vivek
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>  -Hal
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Vivek
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 11:42 PM, Quentin
Colombet <qcolombet at apple.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On May 18, 2016, at 11:00 AM, vivek pandya
<vivekvpandya at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Vivek Pandya
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 11:25 PM,
Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at apple.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On May 18, 2016, at 10:46 AM, vivek
pandya <vivekvpandya at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Vivek Pandya
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 4:01 PM,
Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> From: "vivek pandya"
<vivekvpandya at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> To: "Mehdi Amini"
<mehdi.amini at apple.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: "Hal Finkel"
<hfinkel at anl.gov>, "Quentin Colombet" <qcolombet at
apple.com>, "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>,
"Matthias Braun" <matze at braunis.de>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016
3:15:03 AM
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [GSoC 2016]
Interprocedural Register Allocation - Introduction and Feedback
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Vivek Pandya
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 10:02
AM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Vivek Pandya
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at
9:43 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 10, 2016, at 6:06
PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: "vivek
pandya" <vivekvpandya at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: "llvm-dev"
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Tim Amini Golling"
<mehdi.amini at apple.com>, "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at
anl.gov>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: "Quentin
Colombet" <qcolombet at apple.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016
2:59:16 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [GSoC 2016]
Interprocedural Register Allocation - Introduction and Feedback
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello LLVM Community,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry for delay as I was
busy in final exams.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am Vivek from India.
Thanks for choosing my proposal for Interprocedural Register Allocation (IPRA)
in LLVM. Mehdi Amini and Hal Finkel will be mentoring me for this project.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IPRA can reduce code size
and runtime of programs by allocating register across the module and procedure
boundaries.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have identified some old
but effective research work on this area.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I want community's
feedback for feasibility of these approach and I am targeting to implement two
of them during this project.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is list of the papers,
I have read first two papers and I would like to discuss those approach first, I
will read other two paper then initiate discussion for them as well. All I want
is to find out a concrete implementation plan before 23 May, 2016 and for that I
need community's help.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Compile time -----
Minimizing register usage penalty at procedure calls -
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=53999
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
====================================================================In this
approach intra-procedural register allocation is used as base but machine code
generation order is bottom up traversal of call graph and inter-procedural
effect is achieved by propagating register usage information of callee function
to caller (i.e child to parent in CallGraph) so that caller can use different
registers than callee and can save load store cost at procedure call, this is
not trivial as it seems due to recursive calls, library function usage etc. Also
for upper region of the graph in this technique available number of registers
might become zero in that case it should fall back to normal load store at
procedure call. Apart from these difficulties other difficulties have been
identified please follow this mail-chain
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/llvm-dev/HOYAXv3m1LY/discussion
>>>>>>>>>>>>> My mentor has already
provided me a patch that alters code generation order as per bottom up call
graph traversal, I am working from that point now. Any other help/suggestion is
always welcomed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Link time ----- Global
register allocation at link time - http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=989415
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
====================================================================In this
particular approach (sort of true IPRA) registers will be reallocated (this
optimization will be optional if turned off still code will be compiled as per
intra-procedural allocation) at link time. Here modules are first complied as
per normal compilation but the object code is annotated with details so that
linker can build call graph and also calculate usage information at link time.
Compiler also write hints in object code that if particular variable is
allocated in some other register ( due to new allocation) then how the code
should be changed? Thus linker can use these information to decide which
variables (global) need to be in same register through out the program execution
and also according to register usage information in call graph which procedure
will not be active simultaneously so that locals for that procedures can be in
same registers with out load store at procedure calls.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For these particular method
help me to analyze feasibility:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Can llvm collects
following information at module level in MachineIR? list of procedures in
module, list of locals in procedures, list of procedures that a particular
procedure can call, and a list of the variables this procedure references. Each
entry in the last two lists includes an estimate of the number of times the
procedure is called or the variable is referenced in each execution of this
procedure
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Can llvm write
informative commands to object files?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Can LTO is capable of
leveraging those commands?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In terms of scoping the
project for the summer, I definitely recommend that you focus on (1) first. If
you finish that, we can certainly move on to other things.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll add +1 here, but I
already wrote the same thing on IRC when discussing with Vivek. True IPRA
without a proper MachineModule infrastructure won't be doable in my opinion
(even with such infrastructure, it may not be trivial in LLVM in general).
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding link time, note
that any such a design would likely look much different than in David Wall's
paper however, because our LTO re-codegens everything anyway. The paper says,
"Finally, it keeps us honest as designers of the system; once we postpone
anything until link time, the temptation is great to postpone everything,
..." - Well, we've long-since succumb to that temptation when we LTO.
C'est la vie.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 as well, our LTO will
benefit naturally from the leaf-to-root information propagation. ThinLTO will be
more challenging/interesting though!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the first part a
mechanism similar to MachineModulePass would be desirable but that may not be
possible during this project, but if we can make some sort of smaller version of
that to suit our purpose.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think we need
to make any kind of MachineModulePass to make this work. Once we alter the
visitation order based on the CGSCC iteration scheme, we can keep state
in-between functions in the pre-existing hacky way (using static members of the
relevant function passes).
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>  Sorry my mistake here by first
part I mean 1) requirement in the link time approach.
>>>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also don't see
where/why we need a MachineModule(Pass) for the CGSCC scheme, that said I'd
rather avoid using a function pass with static members, if we can have a
ModuleAnalysis that is bookkeeping the results for functions in the module and
queries by the register allocator somehow.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matthias/Quentin may have
other inputs on this aspect.
>>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>>> @Hal do you mean to add a simple
MachineFunction pass that will just operate on register allocated function and
prepare a BitVector to indicate which register is being used by MachineFunction,
and then use this pass as analysis pass (i.e just simply return static BitVector
for clobbered register when register allocation for next function begins. This
part is not much clear to me) this thing can be done by scheduling a pass post
register allocation in lib/CodeGen/Passes.cpp
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> void
TargetPassConfig::addMachinePasses() {
>>>>>>>>>>> . 
>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>   // Run pre-ra passes.
>>>>>>>>>>>   addPreRegAlloc();
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>   // Run register allocation and
passes that are tightly coupled with it,
>>>>>>>>>>>   // including phi elimination and
scheduling.
>>>>>>>>>>>   if (getOptimizeRegAlloc())
>>>>>>>>>>>    
addOptimizedRegAlloc(createRegAllocPass(true));
>>>>>>>>>>>   else
>>>>>>>>>>>    
addFastRegAlloc(createRegAllocPass(false));
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>   // Run post-ra passes.
>>>>>>>>>>>   addPostRegAlloc();
>>>>>>>>>>> // Adding a new pass here which
keeps register mask information across function calls.
>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> But this also requires current
register allocators to use this information in someway because RegMaskBits in
LiveIntervalAnalysis.cpp is not static across calls. I mean I am not clear for
how to propagate static info to Intra-procedural Register allocators (if
possible without disturbing their code )
>>>>>>>>>>> First, my hope is that we won't
need to change the register allocators, as such, in order to make use of this
information. Instead, we'll simply be able to alter the register masks
generated for the call instructions. These masks will indicate fewer clobbers
than might otherwise be present based on the ABI because of information gathered
during the codegen of the callee. These masks are generally constructed by
target based on the calling convention. The PowerPC backend, for example, looks
like this:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>   // Add a register mask operand
representing the call-preserved registers.
>>>>>>>>>>>   const TargetRegisterInfo *TRI =
Subtarget.getRegisterInfo();
>>>>>>>>>>>   const uint32_t *Mask
>>>>>>>>>>>      
TRI->getCallPreservedMask(DAG.getMachineFunction(), CallConv);
>>>>>>>>>>>   assert(Mask &&
"Missing call preserved mask for calling convention");
>>>>>>>>>>>  
Ops.push_back(DAG.getRegisterMask(Mask));
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> but it can be more complicated. If
you look for uses of 'getRegisterMask' in Target/*/*ISelLowering.cpp,
you'll see what I mean. Regardless, the code ends up calling some method is
the targets TargetRegisterInfo subclass. These methods generally look something
like this:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> const uint32_t *
>>>>>>>>>>>
PPCRegisterInfo::getCallPreservedMask(const MachineFunction &MF,
>>>>>>>>>>>                                    
CallingConv::ID CC) const {
>>>>>>>>>>>   const PPCSubtarget &Subtarget
= MF.getSubtarget<PPCSubtarget>();
>>>>>>>>>>>   ...
>>>>>>>>>>>   return TM.isPPC64() ?
(Subtarget.hasAltivec() ? CSR_SVR464_Altivec_RegMask
>>>>>>>>>>>                                    
: CSR_SVR464_RegMask)
>>>>>>>>>>>                       :
(Subtarget.hasAltivec() ? CSR_SVR432_Altivec_RegMask
>>>>>>>>>>>                                    
: CSR_SVR432_RegMask);
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> In any case, the fundamental idea
here is that, when someone calls getCallPreservedMask in order to set the
regmask on a call, we might not have to use the CC at all. Instead, if we've
already codegened the function, we might use a cache of 'exact' register
masks computed during codegen of the potential callees instead.
>>>>>>>>>> I am thinking to add a simple Immutable
pass MachineRegisterUsageInfo similar to MachineBranchProbabilityInfo that can
maintain RegisterUsageInformation per function. Can it be simply done by using
UsedPhysRegMask from MachineRegisterInfo ??
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> No, like the comment said,
UsedPhysRegMask gives only the registers clobbered by calls:
>>>>>>>>>> // This bit vector represents all the
registers clobbered by function calls.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> You want to build this information
yourself on top of MachineRegisterInfo::isPhysRegModified
>>>>>>>>> Ok but then the time complexity will be
O(n) n = number of physical register on the target. Am I going correct?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Yes, this is correct.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>   
>>>>>>>>>> Here getCallPreservedMask will call API
provided by MachineRegisterUsageInfo to avail the exact register mask but how it
can know that the function is already codegen or it will query each time when
getCallPreservedMask is called and of available MachineRegisterUsageInfo will
return the details otherwise simply return NULL.
>>>>>>>>>> So changes will be now in
TargetRegisterInfo implementation for each target right ??
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> In order to do this, I think
we'll need to provide a function callable from the target's
getCallPreservedMask implementation, which can return such an 'exact'
regmask when available. I think we need to do it this way for two reasons:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>  1. Not all of the target code
calls getCallPreservedMask, but sometimes calls other similar target-specific
functions (e.g. getTLSCallPreservedMask).
>>>>>>>>>>>  2. The targets need to opt-in to
this behavior because only the target can know that all register uses are really
tagged correctly post "pre-emit".
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Because the target is free to
introduce uses of registers at essentially any time, we need to do the scanning
for used registers after the "pre-emit" passes run. This can be done
by scheduling some simple register-use scanning pass after the call to
addPreEmitPass in lib/CodeGen/Passes.cpp.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I think this also applies in
someway to Mehdi Amini's idea to keep a ModulePass for bookkeeping but then
existing register allocators will be required to change so that the code can
query the ModulePass for RegMaskBits for particular function.
>>>>>>>>>>> I think that the simplest way to do
this is to create an immutable analysis pass (e.g. BasicAA) that keeps the cache
of the computed register masks. This is somewhat similar in spirit to how the
'AssumptionCache' analysis works at the IR level. This analysis can then
be created by lib/CodeGen/Passes.cpp early, and then queried and passed around
later by the CodeGen/Target code. Because it is an immutable analysis, it
won't get destroyed until the very end, which is also important because, I
imagine, it will need to own the memory associated with the generated register
masks.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>  -Hal
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Vivek
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes for propagating register
usage approach we don't need MachineModulePass
>>>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>>>> Vivek
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mehdi
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>>> 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/20160524/97951f09/attachment-0001.html>

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mehdi Amini" <mehdi.amini at apple.com>
> To: "vivek pandya" <vivekvpandya at gmail.com>
> Cc: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "llvm-dev"
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Matthias Braun" <matze at
braunis.de>,
> "Quentin Colombet" <qcolombet at apple.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 12:16:14 AM
> Subject: Re: [GSoC 2016] Interprocedural Register Allocation -
> Introduction and Feedback
> > On May 24, 2016, at 10:08 PM, vivek pandya < vivekvpandya at
gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Mehdi Amini <
> > mehdi.amini at apple.com
> > > wrote:
> 
> > > > On May 24, 2016, at 9:17 PM, vivek pandya <
> > > > vivekvpandya at gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > Dear Mentors,
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > Please help me to understand our plan to implement
> > > > Interprocedural
> > > > Register allocator by propogating register usage info. While
> > > > writing
> > > > this mail I am considering all previous discussion over
> > > > llvm-dev
> > > > and
> > > > IRC.
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > 1) A MachineFunction pass to be executed POST-RA to collect
the
> > > > information about the used Registers.
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > 2) An Immutable pass which will store reg usage info
collected
> > > > by
> > > > previous pass and return it whenever queried.
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > 3) A Target specific MachineFucntion pass that will use the
> > > > register
> > > > usage info for available for call instrction to achive IPRA.
> > > > This
> > > > pass should run at PRE-RA.
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > Relation among above passes:
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > 1) pass will store info to 2) pass as well use info for call
> > > > instruction found while processing.
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > 3) pass only requires to query information from 2) pass.
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > Questions
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > ========> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > Which pass is responsible for load/store of callee saved
> > > > register,
> > > > at
> > > > the begining of each function call? And how does it uses
> > > > RegMask
> > > > of
> > > > call instruction to generate load/store. I think
> > > > Intra-procedural
> > > > register allocator is not responsible to generate load/store
> > > > around
> > > > the call site.
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > /- - -> (A) - - -> (D)
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > /
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > (K)- - ->(T)- - -> (B) - - -> (E)
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > \
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > \- - -> (C) - - -> (F)
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > So as per our discussion we would require following passes:
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > Suppose in given example call graph , register allocation
for D
> > > > is
> > > > completed now we have that information available So 3) pass
> > > > while
> > > > processing A , it would collect reg usage info for all
callees
> > > > and
> > > > OR them and then it should update A's regmask by going
to
> > > > parant
> > > > procedure that actually calls A ??
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > No, Pass 3) is only looking for every call MI in A and updating
> > > the
> > > associated regmask by replacing it with the information stored in
> > > the immutable pass.
> > 
> 
> > What is the use of that ? Please be more specific.
> 
> I'm not sure I get the question. You describe 3 different passes at
> the beginning, and it seems fairly obvious what is the
> responsibility of each.
> This seems quite straightforward to me, so I'm not sure what to
> explain, here is the logical sequence on D and A:
> 1) Codegen function D, MachineFunction post-RA: collect the register
> usage for D. Store the new regmask in the immutable pass
> 2) Move to function A, perform ISel, then run the MachineFunction
> pre-RA that finds the call to D. Query the immutable pass and get
> the regmask for D. Update the regmask associated with the call.
Specifically, I described how this latter part likely need to work in
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-May/099531.html

-Hal 
> Done.
> > > > How reg mask details of call D would be used by Register
> > > > allocator
> > > > while allocating register for A and also not generating
> > > > load/store
> > > > for register being used by A in body of D as we have callee
> > > > saved
> > > > convention.
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > I expect all of that to be handled automatically when updating
> > > the
> > > regmask.
> > 
> 
> > Please elaborate your both comments, what ever you have think of it
> > to be.
> 
> > > > How the pass responsible for generating load/store will
> > > > optimize
> > > > for
> > > > the child node of call graph where it does not require to
> > > > load/store
> > > > because caller will not use register used by callee ? I mean
> > > > how
> > > > our
> > > > IPRA will take care of this?
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > I don't understand that.
> > 
> 
> > In above example call graph when pass 3) is executed for D it does
> > not do any work because there is not call to any other function in
> > body of D but actually in presence of IPRA there is no need to
> > preserve (store/load) any register in function D ( and also in
> > other
> > such leaf node of call graph). The reason for the same is A now
> > aware of register usage in D so it will not use any register which
> > intersect with D's register usage thus D need not to worry about
> > any
> > thing.
> 
> > Is this make sense?
> 
> No. D has to obey the calling convention if it is not internal. So
> any callee-saved register has to be ... saved.
> --
> Mehdi
> > > > In short I am not much clear with the method for using
> > > > information
> > > > to
> > > > get effect of IPRA without modifying Register allocator them
> > > > self(i.e by updating regMask of call instructions).
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > Also 1) pass and 3) pass are seem to intersecting for their
> > > > work,
> > > > for
> > > > example consider while scanning register usage info for T
> > > > function
> > > > the final register usage info should be <all regs used by
T> OR
> > > > <
> > > > reg usage info A > OR <reg usage info B > OR <
reg usage info C
> > > > >
> > > > because K should not use any register which is used by T, A
,D,
> > > > B,
> > > > C, E, F with out load/store the relevant paper also discuss
> > > > this
> > > > situation and suggest to fall back to load/store approach.
So
> > > > as
> > > > we
> > > > move to upper region of the call graph it is very likely
that
> > > > enough
> > > > regiseters are not there to allocate.
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > The calling convention (for anything else than internal function)
> > > will always have some callee-saved registers.
> > 
> 
> > > If we have a deep call-graph of internal-only function, then we
> > > may
> > > generate a lot of spill at the top. Somehow we may have to think
> > > about driving some heuristic with PGO.
> > 
> 
> > This kind of problem is addressed by this paper Register allocation
> > across procedure and module boundaries -
> > http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=93551
> 
> > In this paper authors have tried to eliminate load/store only in
> > call
> > intensive regions ( contrast to simple bottom up ) by analyzing
> > call
> > frequency at compile time ( also has facility to plug in Profile
> > info) and rest of the call graph will follow normal register
> > allocator. But yes we will think about this later.
> 
> > > I suspect we can think about that a bit later. Let's focus on
the
> > > simple for now.
> > 
> 
> > > --
> > 
> 
> > > Mehdi
> > 
> 
> > > > Please bear with my silly questions.
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > Sincerely,
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > Vivek
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 8:46 AM, vivek pandya <
> > > > vivekvpandya at gmail.com > wrote:
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Hal Finkel <
hfinkel at anl.gov
> > > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > From: "vivek pandya" <
vivekvpandya at gmail.com >
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > To: "Hal Finkel" < hfinkel at
anl.gov >
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > Cc: "llvm-dev" < llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org >, "Matthias
> > > > > > > Braun"
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > matze at braunis.de >, "Mehdi
Amini" < mehdi.amini at apple.com
> > > > > > > >,
> > > > > > > "Quentin Colombet" < qcolombet
at apple.com >
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 9:34:29 PM
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [GSoC 2016] Interprocedural
Register
> > > > > > > Allocation
> > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > Introduction and Feedback
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 3:53 AM, Hal Finkel
<
> > > > > > > hfinkel at anl.gov
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > From: "vivek pandya" <
vivekvpandya at gmail.com >
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > To: "Quentin Colombet"
< qcolombet at apple.com >
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > Cc: "Hal Finkel" <
hfinkel at anl.gov >, "llvm-dev" <
> > > > > > > > > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >,
"Matthias Braun" <
> > > > > > > > > matze at braunis.de
> > > > > > > > > >,
> > > > > > > > > "Mehdi Amini" <
mehdi.amini at apple.com >
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 1:00:58
PM
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [GSoC 2016]
Interprocedural Register
> > > > > > > > > Allocation
> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > Introduction and Feedback
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > I have written following code to
check each register
> > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > used
> > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > machineFunction or not :
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > MachineRegisterInfo *MRI =
&MF.getRegInfo();
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > TargetRegisterInfo *TRI =
(TargetRegisterInfo
> > > > > > > > >
*)MF.getSubtarget().getRegisterInfo();
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > Some reason you can't use a const
pointer here?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > MCRegisterInfo is just used to get
conventional name of
> > > > > > > register
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > given target like AX, BX on X86.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > const TargetMachine &TM =
MF.getTarget();
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > const MCRegisterInfo *MCRI =
TM.getMCRegisterInfo();
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > DEBUG(dbgs() <<
"Function Name : " << MF.getName() <<
> > > > > > > > > "\n");
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > >
for(TargetRegisterInfo::regclass_iterator i > > > > > > >
> > (*TRI).regclass_begin(), e = (*TRI).regclass_end(); i
> > > > > > > > > !> > > > > > >
> > e;
> > > > > > > > > i++
> > > > > > > > > )
> > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > for(TargetRegisterClass::iterator
pregi > > > > > > > > > (*i)->begin(),
> > > > > > > > > prege
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > (*i)->end(); pregi != prege; pregi++ ) {
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > DEBUG( dbgs() <<
"Physical Register : " <<
> > > > > > > > > MCRI->getName(*pregi)
> > > > > > > > > <<
> > > > > > > > > "
> > > > > > > > > is modified "<<
MRI->isPhysRegModified(*pregi) << "
> > > > > > > > > \n");
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > Try isPhysRegUsed.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > ok
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > DEBUG(dbgs() <<
"\n");
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > The pass which is executing this
code is schedule
> > > > > > > > > POST-RA
> > > > > > > > > stage
> > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > this gives me true for all
registers i.e in each
> > > > > > > > > function
> > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > registers are being used except EBP
and some other
> > > > > > > > > similar,
> > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > a correct way to get register usage
information ? I
> > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > made some mistake please help.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > You might look at the implementation of
these functions
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > lib/CodeGen/MachineRegisterInfo.cpp and
figure out if
> > > > > > > > they're
> > > > > > > > returning true because
UsedPhysRegMask.test(PhysReg) is
> > > > > > > > true
> > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > because reg_nodbg_empty(*AliasReg) is
true.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > Yes that helped now I am getting actual
register which
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > been
> > > > > > > used
> > > > > > > by given function, but a little problem
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > The updated code is as shown below :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > for(TargetRegisterInfo::regclass_iterator i
> > > > > > > (*TRI).regclass_begin(), e =
(*TRI).regclass_end(); i !> > > > > > > e;
> > > > > > > i++
> > > > > > > )
> > > > > > > {
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > for(TargetRegisterClass::iterator pregi =
(*i)->begin(),
> > > > > > > prege
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
(*i)->end(); pregi != prege; pregi++ ) {
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > for (MCRegAliasIterator AliasReg(*pregi, TRI,
true);
> > > > > > > AliasReg.isValid(); ++AliasReg) {
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > if (!MRI->reg_nodbg_empty(*AliasReg)) {
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > DEBUG( dbgs() << "Physical
Register : " <<
> > > > > > > MCRI->getName(*pregi)
> > > > > > > <<
> > > > > > > "
> > > > > > > is used "<<
MRI->isPhysRegUsed(*pregi) << " \n");
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > break; // no need to process more alias
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > But here some registers are getting processed
with in
> > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > classes (unnecessary processing) Is this only
way to
> > > > > > > iterate
> > > > > > > through
> > > > > > > all used register (using RegClass iterator) ?
Is there
> > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > avoid duplicate regs?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > Of course currently I am just printing but
next I am
> > > > > > > thinking
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > a map to track usage info , in that only
distinct
> > > > > > > register
> > > > > > > info
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > be stored but still due to loop structure I
need to
> > > > > > > iterate
> > > > > > > through
> > > > > > > a single register 3 - 4 times making it time
consuming.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > Yes, I believe you can just do:
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > for (unsigned Reg = 0; Reg <
TRI->getNumRegs(); ++Reg) {
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > Oh yes thanks I just forgot that PhyReg starts at 0.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > -Hal
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > -Vivek
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > -Hal
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > Vivek
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 11:42 PM,
Quentin Colombet <
> > > > > > > > > qcolombet at apple.com > wrote:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > On May 18, 2016, at 11:00
AM, vivek pandya <
> > > > > > > > > > > vivekvpandya at gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > Vivek Pandya
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at
11:25 PM, Quentin
> > > > > > > > > > > Colombet
> > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > qcolombet at apple.com
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 18,
2016, at 10:46 AM, vivek pandya <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > vivekvpandya at
gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Vivek Pandya
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 11,
2016 at 4:01 PM, Hal Finkel <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > hfinkel at
anl.gov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From:
"vivek pandya" <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
vivekvpandya at gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To:
"Mehdi Amini" < mehdi.amini at apple.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc:
"Hal Finkel" < hfinkel at anl.gov >,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
"Quentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Colombet"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
qcolombet at apple.com >, "llvm-dev" <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
"Matthias Braun" < matze at braunis.de >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent:
Wednesday, May 11, 2016 3:15:03 AM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Subject: Re: [GSoC 2016] Interprocedural
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Register
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Allocation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Introduction and Feedback
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vivek
Pandya
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On
Wed, May 11, 2016 at 10:02 AM, vivek
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
pandya
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
vivekvpandya at gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Vivek Pandya
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Mehdi
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Amini
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
<
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
mehdi.amini at apple.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > On May 10, 2016, at 6:06 PM, Hal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > Finkel
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > hfinkel at anl.gov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > From: "vivek pandya" <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > vivekvpandya at gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > To: "llvm-dev" <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > "Tim
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > Amini
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > Golling"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > mehdi.amini at apple.com >, "Hal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > Finkel"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > hfinkel at anl.gov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > Cc: "Quentin Colombet" <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > qcolombet at apple.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > 2:59:16
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > Subject: [GSoC 2016]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > Interprocedural
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > Register
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > Allocation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > Introduction and Feedback
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > Hello LLVM Community,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > Sorry for delay as I was busy in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > final
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > exams.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > I am Vivek from India. Thanks for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > choosing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > proposal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > Interprocedural Register
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > Allocation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > (IPRA)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > LLVM.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > Mehdi
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > Amini
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > Hal Finkel will be mentoring me
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > project.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > IPRA can reduce code size and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > runtime
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > programs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > allocating
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > register across the module and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > procedure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > boundaries.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > I have identified some old but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > effective
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > research
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > area.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > I want community's feedback for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > feasibility
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > am targeting to implement two of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > during
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > project.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > Here is list of the papers, I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > read
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > two
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > papers
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > like to discuss those approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > first,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > read
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > two
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > paper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > then initiate discussion for them
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > All
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > want
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > find
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > out
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > a concrete implementation plan
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > before
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > 23
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > May,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > 2016
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > need community's help.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > 1) Compile time ----- Minimizing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > register
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > usage
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > penalty
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > procedure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > calls -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=53999
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >
====================================================================In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > this approach intra-procedural
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > register
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > allocation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > used
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > base
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > but machine code generation order
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > bottom
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > up
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > traversal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > call
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > graph and inter-procedural effect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > achieved
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > propagating
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > register usage information of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > callee
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > function
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > caller
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > (i.e
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > child
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > to parent in CallGraph) so that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > caller
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > different
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > registers
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > than callee and can save load
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > store
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > cost
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > procedure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > call,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > not trivial as it seems due to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > recursive
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > calls,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > library
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > function
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > usage etc. Also for upper region
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > graph
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > technique
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > available number of registers
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > might
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > become
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > zero
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > should fall back to normal load
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > store
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > procedure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > call.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > Apart
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > these difficulties other
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > difficulties
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > been
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > identified
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > follow this mail-chain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/llvm-dev/HOYAXv3m1LY/discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > My mentor has already provided me
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > patch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > alters
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > code
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > generation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > order as per bottom up call graph
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > traversal,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > am
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > working
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > point now. Any other
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > help/suggestion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > always
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > welcomed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > 2) Link time ----- Global
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > register
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > allocation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > link
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > time
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=989415
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >
====================================================================In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > this particular approach (sort of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > true
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > IPRA)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > registers
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > reallocated (this optimization
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > optional
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > turned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > off
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > still
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > code will be compiled as per
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > intra-procedural
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > allocation)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > link
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > time. Here modules are first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > complied
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > per
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > normal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > compilation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > the object code is annotated with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > details
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > so
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > linker
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > build
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > call graph and also calculate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > usage
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > information
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > link
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > Compiler also write hints in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > object
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > code
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > particular
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > variable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > is allocated in some other
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > register
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > (
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > due
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > allocation)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > how the code should be changed?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > Thus
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > linker
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > information to decide which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > variables
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > (global)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > same
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > register through out the program
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > execution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > also
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > according
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > register usage information in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > call
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > graph
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > procedure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > active simultaneously so that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > locals
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > procedures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > same registers with out load
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > store
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > procedure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > calls.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > For these particular method help
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > analyze
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > feasibility:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > 1) Can llvm collects following
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > information
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > module
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > MachineIR? list of procedures in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > module,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > list
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > locals
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > procedures, list of procedures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > particular
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > procedure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > call,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > and a list of the variables this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > procedure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > references.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > Each
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > entry
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > the last two lists includes an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > estimate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > number
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > times
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > procedure is called or the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > variable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > referenced
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > each
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > execution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > of this procedure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > 2) Can llvm write informative
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > commands
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > object
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > files?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > 3) Can LTO is capable of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > leveraging
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > commands?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > In terms of scoping the project for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > summer,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > definitely
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > recommend that you focus on (1)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > If
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > finish
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > that,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > certainly move on to other things.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> I'll add +1 here, but I already wrote
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> same
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> thing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> IRC
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> discussing with Vivek. True IPRA
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> proper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> MachineModule
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> infrastructure won't be doable in my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> opinion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> (even
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> infrastructure, it may not be trivial
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> LLVM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> general).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > Regarding link time, note that any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > design
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > likely
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > look
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > much different than in David Wall's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > paper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > however,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > LTO
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > re-codegens everything anyway. The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > paper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > says,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > "Finally,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > keeps
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > us
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > honest as designers of the system;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > once
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > postpone
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > anything
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > until
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > link time, the temptation is great
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > postpone
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > everything,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > ..."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > Well, we've long-since succumb to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > temptation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > LTO.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > C'est
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > la vie.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> +1 as well, our LTO will benefit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> naturally
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> leaf-to-root
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> information propagation. ThinLTO will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> challenging/interesting though!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > For the first part a mechanism
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > similar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > MachineModulePass
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > desirable but that may not be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > possible
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > during
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > project,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > we can make some sort of smaller
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > version
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > suit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > purpose.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > I don't think we need to make any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > kind
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > MachineModulePass
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > this work. Once we alter the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > visitation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > order
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > CGSCC
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > iteration scheme, we can keep state
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > in-between
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > functions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > pre-existing hacky way (using
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > static
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > members
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > relevant
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > function passes).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Sorry my mistake here by first part I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
mean
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
1)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
requirement
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
link
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
time approach.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> I also don't see where/why we need a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> MachineModule(Pass)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> CGSCC scheme, that said I'd rather
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> avoid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> using
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> function
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> pass
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> static members, if we can have a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> ModuleAnalysis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> bookkeeping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> the results for functions in the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> module
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> queries
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> register
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> allocator somehow.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Matthias/Quentin may have other
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> inputs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> aspect.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Hal
do you mean to add a simple
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
MachineFunction
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pass
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
operate on register allocated function
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
prepare
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
BitVector
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
indicate which register is being used by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
MachineFunction,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
this pass as analysis pass (i.e just
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
simply
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
return
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
static
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
BitVector for clobbered register when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
register
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
allocation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > next
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
function begins. This part is not much
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clear
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
done by scheduling a pass post
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
register
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
allocation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
lib/CodeGen/Passes.cpp
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > void
TargetPassConfig::addMachinePasses()
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > //
Run pre-ra passes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
addPreRegAlloc();
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > //
Run register allocation and passes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
tightly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
coupled
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > //
including phi elimination and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
scheduling.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
(getOptimizeRegAlloc())
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
addOptimizedRegAlloc(createRegAllocPass(true));
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > else
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
addFastRegAlloc(createRegAllocPass(false));
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > //
Run post-ra passes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
addPostRegAlloc();
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > //
Adding a new pass here which keeps
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
register
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mask
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
information
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
across function calls.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But
this also requires current register
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
allocators
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
information in someway because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
RegMaskBits
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
LiveIntervalAnalysis.cpp is not static
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
across
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
calls.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > am
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clear
for how to propagate static info to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Intra-procedural
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Register
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
allocators (if possible without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
disturbing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > )
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > First, my
hope is that we won't need to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > register
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
allocators, as such, in order to make use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
information.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Instead,
we'll simply be able to alter the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > register
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > masks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > generated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the
call instructions. These masks will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > indicate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > fewer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > clobbers
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > than might
otherwise be present based on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ABI
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
information gathered during the codegen of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > callee.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > These
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > masks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
generally constructed by target based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > calling
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
convention.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The
PowerPC backend, for example, looks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > // Add a
register mask operand representing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
call-preserved
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > registers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > const
TargetRegisterInfo *TRI > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > Subtarget.getRegisterInfo();
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > const
uint32_t *Mask > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
TRI->getCallPreservedMask(DAG.getMachineFunction(),
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > CallConv);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
assert(Mask && "Missing call preserved mask
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > calling
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
convention");
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Ops.push_back(DAG.getRegisterMask(Mask));
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > but it can
be more complicated. If you look
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
'getRegisterMask' in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Target/*/*ISelLowering.cpp,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > you'll
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean.
Regardless, the code ends up calling
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > method
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > targets
TargetRegisterInfo subclass. These
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > methods
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > generally
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > look
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > something
like this:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > const
uint32_t *
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
PPCRegisterInfo::getCallPreservedMask(const
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
MachineFunction
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > &MF,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
CallingConv::ID CC) const {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > const
PPCSubtarget &Subtarget > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > MF.getSubtarget<PPCSubtarget>();
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > return
TM.isPPC64() ?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
(Subtarget.hasAltivec()
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
CSR_SVR464_Altivec_RegMask
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
CSR_SVR464_RegMask)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
(Subtarget.hasAltivec() ?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
CSR_SVR432_Altivec_RegMask
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
CSR_SVR432_RegMask);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In any
case, the fundamental idea here is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > calls
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
getCallPreservedMask in order to set the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > regmask
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > call,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > not have
to use the CC at all. Instead, if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > we've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > codegened
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
function, we might use a cache of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
'exact'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > register
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > masks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > computed
during codegen of the potential
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > callees
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > instead.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I am thinking
to add a simple Immutable pass
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
MachineRegisterUsageInfo
> > > > > > > > > > > > > similar to
MachineBranchProbabilityInfo that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > maintain
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
RegisterUsageInformation per function. Can it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > simply
> > > > > > > > > > > > > done
> > > > > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > using
UsedPhysRegMask from
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
MachineRegisterInfo
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ??
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > No, like the comment
said, UsedPhysRegMask
> > > > > > > > > > > > gives
> > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > registers
> > > > > > > > > > > > clobbered by calls:
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > // This bit vector
represents all the registers
> > > > > > > > > > > > clobbered
> > > > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > function
> > > > > > > > > > > > calls.
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > You want to build
this information yourself on
> > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > >
MachineRegisterInfo:: isPhysRegModified
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > Ok but then the time
complexity will be O(n) n > > > > > > > > > > >
number
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > physical
> > > > > > > > > > > register on the target.
Am I going correct?
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > Yes, this is correct.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Here
getCallPreservedMask will call API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > provided
> > > > > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
MachineRegisterUsageInfo to avail the exact
> > > > > > > > > > > > > register
> > > > > > > > > > > > > mask
> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > can know that
the function is already codegen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > query
> > > > > > > > > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > > > > > > time when
getCallPreservedMask is called and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > available
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
MachineRegisterUsageInfo will return the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > details
> > > > > > > > > > > > > otherwise
> > > > > > > > > > > > > simply
> > > > > > > > > > > > > return NULL.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > So changes will
be now in TargetRegisterInfo
> > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > > > > > > target right ??
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In order
to do this, I think we'll need to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > function
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > callable
from the target's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
getCallPreservedMask
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
implementation,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > which can
return such an 'exact' regmask
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > available.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > need to do
it this way for two reasons:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Not all
of the target code calls
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
getCallPreservedMask,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes
calls other similar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
target-specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > functions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
getTLSCallPreservedMask).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The
targets need to opt-in to this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > behavior
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > target can
know that all register uses are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tagged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > correctly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > post
"pre-emit".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because
the target is free to introduce
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > registers
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
essentially any time, we need to do the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > scanning
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > registers
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > after the
"pre-emit" passes run. This can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > done
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > scheduling
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > simple
register-use scanning pass after the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > call
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
addPreEmitPass
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
lib/CodeGen/Passes.cpp.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
think this also applies in someway to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mehdi
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Amini's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
ModulePass for bookkeeping but then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
existing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
register
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
allocators
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
be required to change so that the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > query
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
ModulePass
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
RegMaskBits for particular function.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think
that the simplest way to do this is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > create
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > immutable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > analysis
pass (e.g. BasicAA) that keeps the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > cache
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > computed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > register
masks. This is somewhat similar in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > spirit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
'AssumptionCache' analysis works at the IR
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > level.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > analysis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > then be
created by lib/CodeGen/Passes.cpp
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > early,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > queried
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and passed
around later by the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
CodeGen/Target
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > code.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > immutable
analysis, it won't get destroyed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > until
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > very
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > end,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is also
important because, I imagine, it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > own
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > memory
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > associated
with the generated register
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > masks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Hal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vivek
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Yes for propagating register usage
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
don't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
need
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
MachineModulePass
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Vivek
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Mehdi
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
-- 

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/20160525/9996dab3/attachment-0001.html>