similar to: [LLVMdev] "load groups" IR feature to improve C++ devirtualization

On May 9, 2013, at 6:34 PM, Nick Lewycky <nlewycky at google.com> wrote: > I'm looking into how we can improve devirtualization in clang, and there a language in C++ feature I'd like to take advantage of which would let us perform elimination of more vptr loads. In this code: > > Cls *p = new Cls; > p->virtual_method1(); > p->method_changing_vptr(); //

Hi Nick, Won't this approach run into problems with inlining, unrolling, or just about anything that duplicates code? Suppose I have a bunch of loads of the same load group in the body of the loop, but update the pointer they're dereferencing on the backedge. If that loop gets unrolled, all the loads in the unrolled copies will have the same load group, but it would not be correct to

On 9 May 2013 19:13, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote: > On May 9, 2013, at 6:34 PM, Nick Lewycky <nlewycky at google.com> wrote: > > I'm looking into how we can improve devirtualization in clang, and there > a language in C++ feature I'd like to take advantage of which would let us > perform elimination of more vptr loads. In this code: > > >

On May 9, 2013, at 9:22 PM, Nick Lewycky <nlewycky at google.com> wrote: > On 9 May 2013 19:13, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote: > This is not how I understand the [basic.life] rules. The question is whether a pointer value, reference, or name is formally forwarded to point to the new object. Because the dynamic type is different, the pointer value held in 'p'

Kenneth Uildriks wrote: > On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 12:45 AM, Nick Lewycky<nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote: >> Kenneth Uildriks wrote: >>>> >>>> You're right, I hadn't thought this through. The whole point of making >>>> them >>>> local is to say that "I'm sure these callees won't modify that memory" >>>>

On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > Hi Piotr, > > Thanks for posting this! First, a question. When you say, regarding i8* > @llvm.invariant.group.barrier(i8*): > > "Required to handle destructors, placement new and std::launder. Call of > this function will be put on the end of each of this functions" > > I

On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 11:16 PM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote: > Kenneth Uildriks wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 12:45 AM, Nick Lewycky<nicholas at mxc.ca>  wrote: >>> >>> Kenneth Uildriks wrote: >>>>> >>>>> You're right, I hadn't thought this through. The whole point of making >>>>>

On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 12:45 AM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote: > Kenneth Uildriks wrote: >>> >>> You're right, I hadn't thought this through. The whole point of making >>> them >>> local is to say that "I'm sure these callees won't modify that memory" >>> regardless of what functions actually get called,

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Piotr Padlewski <prazek at google.com> wrote: > HI, > Yep, our proposal doesn't cover it, because this load ; icmp ; assume; > will land global initilizer function, and main will not see it. > At least if foo would be called multiple times, then we would only have > one load from vtable, but unfortunatelly we will not be able to inline,

On Oct 13, 2010, at 4:35 AM, Kenneth Uildriks wrote: > On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 12:45 AM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote: >> Kenneth Uildriks wrote: >>>> >>>> You're right, I hadn't thought this through. The whole point of making >>>> them >>>> local is to say that "I'm sure these callees won't modify

> You're right, I hadn't thought this through. The whole point of making them > local is to say that "I'm sure these callees won't modify that memory" > regardless of what functions actually get called, even indirectly. We can't > know that they won't modify the vptr in advance, so invariant doesn't work > here. Making it non-local just means

2017-01-26 3:28 GMT+01:00 Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk>: > On 25 January 2017 at 15:03, Hal Finkel via cfe-dev < > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Hi Piotr, >> >> I think makes sense. Modulo bitcasts, the invariant is identified by a >> particular pointer SSA value. Given that you can't sensibly have two >> nonequivalent

John McCall wrote: > On Dec 8, 2011, at 10:03 PM, Nick Lewycky wrote: >> Noalias returns, nocapture, SCC refinement, linkonce_odr and >> available_externally were added with the goal of making devirtualization >> in LLVM happen, but as orthogonal independent optimizations. I think >> LLVM should continue with this design. If you want to implement a single >>

Kenneth Uildriks wrote: >> You're right, I hadn't thought this through. The whole point of making them >> local is to say that "I'm sure these callees won't modify that memory" >> regardless of what functions actually get called, even indirectly. We can't >> know that they won't modify the vptr in advance, so invariant doesn't work

On 12 October 2010 05:00, Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 11:10 PM, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote: > > On Oct 11, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Kenneth Uildriks wrote: > >> A better way for a front-end to declare that vtbl-ptr-hacking is not > >> expected and not supported is for it to emit llvm.invariant.start and

2017-01-26 15:41 GMT+01:00 Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov>: > > On 01/26/2017 06:44 AM, Piotr Padlewski wrote: > > > > 2017-01-26 3:28 GMT+01:00 Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk>: > >> On 25 January 2017 at 15:03, Hal Finkel via cfe-dev < >> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> Hi Piotr, >>> >>> I think

On Dec 8, 2011, at 10:03 PM, Nick Lewycky wrote: > Noalias returns, nocapture, SCC refinement, linkonce_odr and > available_externally were added with the goal of making devirtualization > in LLVM happen, but as orthogonal independent optimizations. I think > LLVM should continue with this design. If you want to implement a single > substantial optimization pass, I would suggest

On 01/28/2017 10:36 AM, Piotr Padlewski wrote: > > > 2017-01-26 15:41 GMT+01:00 Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov > <mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>>: > > > On 01/26/2017 06:44 AM, Piotr Padlewski wrote: >> >> >> 2017-01-26 3:28 GMT+01:00 Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk >> <mailto:richard at metafoo.co.uk>>: >>

> On Mar 29, 2018, at 9:12 AM, Piotr Padlewski <piotr.padlewski at gmail.com> wrote: > 2018-03-28 23:23 GMT+02:00 John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com <mailto:rjmccall at apple.com>>: >> On Mar 19, 2018, at 7:27 PM, Piotr Padlewski via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> Note that adding calls to strip and

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com > wrote: > Hi Piotr, > > On March 31, 2017 at 9:07:42 AM, Piotr Padlewski > (piotr.padlewski at gmail.com) wrote: > > Hi all, > > I have a question about dereferenceable metadata on load instruction. I > > have a patch (https://reviews.llvm.org/D31539) for LICM that hoists >