similar to: CGP: Break use-def graph loops in optimizeMemoryInst

Hey guys, I'm working on the S3D Benchmark and notice that CodeGenPrepare::OptimizeMemoryInst(...) in lib/Transforms/Scalar/CodeGenPrepare.cpp isn't scaling well. A whopping 99.3% of the compilation time for one file is spent in this function. The User Time for this compilation is 3166 seconds with a stock LLVM 3.1. If I disable the calls to OptimizeMemoryInst(...), the compilation time

Hi Pankaj, On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 1:55 PM, Chawla, Pankaj <pankaj.chawla at intel.com> wrote: > Thanks for the reply! > Would it be possible for you to implement this? I don't have cycles for this right now, but if you file a bug I can give this a shot when I have time later. Even in the best case this will have to at least wait until end of April because I'm leaving for a

This sounds fine to me (and sorry for the delay!). -- Sanjoy On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 1:09 PM, Chawla, Pankaj <pankaj.chawla at intel.com> wrote: > Hi Sanjoy, > > So what is the verdict on this issue? > > Thanks, > Pankaj > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chawla, Pankaj > Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 11:12 AM > To: Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at

When multiple GEPs or other operations are used for the address calculation, OptimizeMemoryInst() performs address matching and determines a final addressing expression as a simple form (e.g., ptrtoint/add/inttoptr) and sinks it into user's block so that ISel could have better chance to fold address computation into LDRs and STRs. However, OptimizeMemoryInst() seems to do this transformation

Hi, while taking a look at X86PadShortFunction.cpp I found that /// addPadding - Add the given number of NOOP instructions to the function /// just prior to the return at MBBI void PadShortFunc::addPadding(MachineBasicBlock *MBB, MachineBasicBlock::iterator &MBBI, unsigned int NOOPsToAdd) { DebugLoc DL = MBBI->getDebugLoc();

Hi Sanjoy, Thanks for the reply! Would it be possible for you to implement this? You know the codebase better than I do. Thanks, Pankaj -----Original Message----- From: Sanjoy Das [mailto:sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 1:34 PM To: Chawla, Pankaj <pankaj.chawla at intel.com> Cc: Maxim Kazantsev <max.kazantsev at azul.com>; Serguei Katkov

On Nov 20, 2013, at 3:10 PM, Junbum Lim <junbums at gmail.com> wrote: > > > When multiple GEPs or other operations are used for the address calculation, OptimizeMemoryInst() performs address matching and determines a final addressing expression as a simple form (e.g., ptrtoint/add/inttoptr) and sinks it into user's block so that ISel could have better chance to fold address

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Evan Cheng" <evan.cheng at apple.com> > To: "Junbum Lim" <junbums at gmail.com> > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 7:01:49 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] sinking address computing in CodeGenPrepare > > > On Nov 20, 2013, at 3:10 PM, Junbum Lim <junbums at gmail.com>

Hi All, The landed patch https://reviews.llvm.org/D38481 introduced the usage of CPU_COUNT defined in glibc sched.h header. I failed to find this symbol in sched.h of glibc version 2.5-24, so compilation just fails. /home/dolphin/merge-from-upstream-area/ws/pristine/lib/Support/Threading.cpp: In function 'unsigned int llvm::hardware_concurrency()':

On Nov 20, 2013, at 5:38 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Evan Cheng" <evan.cheng at apple.com> >> To: "Junbum Lim" <junbums at gmail.com> >> Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu >> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 7:01:49 PM >> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] sinking address computing in

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Evan Cheng" <evan.cheng at apple.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "LLVM" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "Junbum Lim" <junbums at gmail.com> > Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 7:48:13 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] sinking address computing in CodeGenPrepare > >

On Nov 20, 2013, at 10:38 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Evan Cheng" <evan.cheng at apple.com> >> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> >> Cc: "LLVM" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "Junbum Lim" <junbums at gmail.com> >> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013

Hi Sanjoy, >> I'm a bit apprehensive of adding more caching to solve problems created by caching; but if there is no way out of adding another cache, how about adding a cache that maps SCEV expressions to their simplified versions? Then we could do something like: I may be wrong but I think caching is not an issue in itself, but caching in the presence of self-recursion is. >>

On Nov 12, 2013, at 11:24 AM, Junbum Lim <junbums at gmail.com> wrote: > > I wonder why CodeGenPrepare breaks GEP into integer calculations (ptrtoin/add/inttopt) instead of directly sinking the address calculation using GEP into user's block. I believe it's primary for address mode matching where only part of the GEP can be folded (depending on the instruction set). Evan

I wonder why CodeGenPrepare breaks GEP into integer calculations (ptrtoin/add/inttopt) instead of directly sinking the address calculation using GEP into user's block. Thanks, Jun On Nov 12, 2013, at 12:07 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > The reason for this is to allow folding of address computation into loads and stores. A lot of modern arch, e.g. X86 and arm,

On Nov 21, 2013, at 4:47 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > > On Nov 20, 2013, at 10:38 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Evan Cheng" <evan.cheng at apple.com> >>> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> >>> Cc: "LLVM" <llvmdev at

Hi, I want to improve the way CGP sinks the incoming values of a PHI node towards memory accesses. Improving it means a lot to some of our key benchmarks, and I believe can benefit many general cases as well. CGP's OptimizeMemoryInst function handles PHI nodes by running AddressingModeMatcher on all incoming values to see whether they reach consensus on the addressing mode. It does a

Hi Sanjoy, So what is the verdict on this issue? Thanks, Pankaj -----Original Message----- From: Chawla, Pankaj Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 11:12 AM To: Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> Cc: Maxim Kazantsev <max.kazantsev at azul.com>; Serguei Katkov <serguei.katkov at azul.com>; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: RE: [SCEV] Inconsistent SCEV formation for

On Nov 21, 2013, at 10:37 PM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: > > On Nov 21, 2013, at 4:47 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Nov 20, 2013, at 10:38 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: >> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Evan Cheng" <evan.cheng at apple.com>

Reverted: https://reviews.llvm.org/rL314922 On Oct 4, 2017, at 1:17 PM, Philip Reames via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: + Rui, the patch author Do we know what the oldest glibc which works with this patch is? For context, the most recent REHL 5 ships with glibc 2.5. REHL 6 ships with 2.12 and REHL ships with 2.17. I have evidence