similar to: [IPRA] Do we required more aggressive shrink-wrapping optimization?

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 1:43 AM, vivek pandya via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hello Quentin, > > I see your work on shrink-wrapping optimization at > http://reviews.llvm.org/rL236507 > IPRA has benefited shrink-wrapping optimization ( I have noticed that on > sqlite3 test-case) so I did read Fred Chow's paper and compare that > approach with

> On Jun 27, 2016, at 12:25 PM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello , > > To solve this bug locally I have given preference to tail call optimization over local function related optimization in IPRA. I have added following method to achieve this: > > bool isEligibleForTailCallOptimization(Function *F) { > CallingConv::ID CC =

Hello LLVM Developers, Please follow summary of work done during this week. Implementation: ============ During this week patch for bug fix 28144 is updated after finding more refinement in remarks calculation. As per suggestion from Matthias Braun and Hal Finkel regmask calculation code is same as MachineRegisterInfo::isPhysRegModified() except no check of isNoReturnDef() is required. So we

According to this http://llvm.org/docs/CodeGenerator.html#tail-call-section, it seems that adding a new CC for the purpose of local function optimization seems a good idea because tail call optimization only takes place when both caller and callee have fastcc or GHC or HiPE calling convention. -Vivek On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 1:26 AM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at gmail.com> wrote: >

Hello , To solve this bug locally I have given preference to tail call optimization over local function related optimization in IPRA. I have added following method to achieve this: bool isEligibleForTailCallOptimization(Function *F) { CallingConv::ID CC = F->getCallingConv(); if (CC == CallingConv::Fast || CC == CallingConv::GHC || CC == CallingConv::HiPE) return true; return false;

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 8:11 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jun 27, 2016, at 12:25 PM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello , > > To solve this bug locally I have given preference to tail call > optimization over local function related optimization in IPRA. I have added > following method to achieve this: > >

Hello LLVM Developers, Please feel free to send any ideas that you can think to improve current IPRA. I will work on it and if possible I will implement that. Please consider summary of work done during this week. Implementation: ============ The reviews requests has been updated to reflect the reviews. Testing: ===== To get more benefit from IPRA I experimented it with LTO and results

On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 12:18 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jul 8, 2016, at 11:41 AM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 11:46 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> > wrote: > >> >> On Jul 8, 2016, at 11:12 AM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at gmail.com> wrote:

I have been working on PGO driven IPRA and I want to measure if this help to reduce execution time. So as mentioned earlier the idea is to make cold function register usage free i.e saving and restoring all used register by such cold function so caller of that function will have more free registers. So here I am changing standard callee saved registers set to a set which will be decided

----- Original Message ----- > From: "vivek pandya" <vivekvpandya at gmail.com> > To: "Mehdi Amini" <mehdi.amini at apple.com> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "Quentin Colombet" <qcolombet at apple.com> > Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 2:59:02 PM >

Vivek, IIUC it seems that we need two pieces of information to do IPRA, 1. what registers the callee clobbers 2. what the callee does to the call-graph And it is #2 that we are missing when we define an external function, Even when we declare it with a preserves or a regmask attribute, So what I / we need is another attribute that says this is a leaf function, At least in my case all

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jun 4, 2016, at 8:32 PM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> > On Jun 4, 2016, at 7:56 PM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at gmail.com> >> wrote:

Dear Community, Sorry for being late for weekly status report but I was traveling back to my college. Please consider this week's summary as follows: Implementation: ============ This week I tried to get experimental PGO driven IPRA work. The idea is to save all register in prolog and restore it in epilog for cold function so that IPRA can propagate some free register to upper region of

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 1:45 AM, Matthias Braun <matze at braunis.de> wrote: > > > On Jun 20, 2016, at 12:53 PM, Sanjoy Das via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Vivek, > > > > vivek pandya via llvm-dev wrote: > > > int foo() { > > > return 12; > > > } > > > > > >

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 9:01 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "vivek pandya" <vivekvpandya at gmail.com> > > To: "Mehdi Amini" <mehdi.amini at apple.com> > > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, > "Quentin

On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Lawrence, Peter <c_plawre at qca.qualcomm.com> wrote: > Vivek, > > I am looking into these function attributes in the clang docs > > Preserve_most > > Preserve_all > > They are not available in the 3.6.2 that I am currently using, but I hope > they exist in 3.8 > > > >

Vivek, I apologize if you took my original email as a request for implementation, I meant to be asking what is already available, I think the answer to that is the ‘preserves_most’ and ‘preserves_all’ attributes, but I will also Use ‘regmask’ if those prove to be too sub-optimal. I am still interested in figuring out the necessary and sufficient conditions For LLC to do optimal IPRA

----- Original Message ----- > From: "vivek pandya" <vivekvpandya at gmail.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Quentin Colombet" > <qcolombet at apple.com>, "Mehdi Amini" <mehdi.amini at apple.com> > Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 5:02:44 AM >

Hello Mentors, I did analyze assembly files generated for IPRA + PGO. (1) I observed that I did not considered the scope of the optimization so changing callee saved register set for non local function is bad because IPRA can not pass this information to other modules. (2) applying this change to indirect function also has no effect because for such case IPRA is currently not able to propagate

On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 11:46 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jul 8, 2016, at 11:12 AM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello LLVM Developers, > > I have a thought to improve IPRA and I would like summaries discussion on > IRC regarding that so we can develop an idea out of that if it really helps. > > So idea is