This patch add support for eliminating MemoryDefs that do not have any
aliasing users, which indicates that there are no reads/writes to the
memory location until the end of the function.
To eliminate such defs, we have to ensure that the underlying object is
not visible in the caller and does not escape via returning. We need a
separate check for that, as InvisibleToCaller does not consider returns.
Reviewers: dmgreen, rnk, efriedma, bryant, asbirlea, Tyker, george.burgess.iv
Reviewed By: asbirlea
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72631
This patch relaxes the post-dominance requirement for accesses to
objects visible after the function returns.
Instead of requiring the killing def to post-dominate the access to
eliminate, the set of 'killing blocks' (= blocks that completely
overwrite the original access) is collected.
If all paths from the access to eliminate and an exit block go through a
killing block, the access can be removed.
To check this property, we first get the common post-dominator block for
the killing blocks. If this block does not post-dominate the access
block, there may be a path from DomAccess to an exit block not involving
any killing block.
Otherwise we have to check if there is a path from the DomAccess to the
common post-dominator, that does not contain a killing block. If there
is no such path, we can remove DomAccess. For this check, we start at
the common post-dominator and then traverse the CFG backwards. Paths are
terminated when we hit a killing block or a block that is not executed
between DomAccess and a killing block according to the post-order
numbering (if the post order number of a block is greater than the one
of DomAccess, the block cannot be in in a path starting at DomAccess).
This gives the following improvements on the total number of stores
after DSE for MultiSource, SPEC2K, SPEC2006:
Tests: 237
Same hash: 206 (filtered out)
Remaining: 31
Metric: dse.NumRemainingStores
Program base new100 diff
test-suite...CFP2000/188.ammp/188.ammp.test 3624.00 3544.00 -2.2%
test-suite...ch/g721/g721encode/encode.test 128.00 126.00 -1.6%
test-suite.../Benchmarks/Olden/mst/mst.test 73.00 72.00 -1.4%
test-suite...CFP2006/433.milc/433.milc.test 3202.00 3163.00 -1.2%
test-suite...000/186.crafty/186.crafty.test 5062.00 5010.00 -1.0%
test-suite...-typeset/consumer-typeset.test 40460.00 40248.00 -0.5%
test-suite...Source/Benchmarks/sim/sim.test 642.00 639.00 -0.5%
test-suite...nchmarks/McCat/09-vor/vor.test 642.00 644.00 0.3%
test-suite...lications/sqlite3/sqlite3.test 35664.00 35563.00 -0.3%
test-suite...T2000/300.twolf/300.twolf.test 7202.00 7184.00 -0.2%
test-suite...lications/ClamAV/clamscan.test 19475.00 19444.00 -0.2%
test-suite...INT2000/164.gzip/164.gzip.test 2199.00 2196.00 -0.1%
test-suite...peg2/mpeg2dec/mpeg2decode.test 2380.00 2378.00 -0.1%
test-suite.../Benchmarks/Bullet/bullet.test 39335.00 39309.00 -0.1%
test-suite...:: External/Povray/povray.test 36951.00 36927.00 -0.1%
test-suite...marks/7zip/7zip-benchmark.test 67396.00 67356.00 -0.1%
test-suite...6/464.h264ref/464.h264ref.test 31497.00 31481.00 -0.1%
test-suite...006/453.povray/453.povray.test 51441.00 51416.00 -0.0%
test-suite...T2006/401.bzip2/401.bzip2.test 4450.00 4448.00 -0.0%
test-suite...Applications/kimwitu++/kc.test 23481.00 23471.00 -0.0%
test-suite...chmarks/MallocBench/gs/gs.test 6286.00 6284.00 -0.0%
test-suite.../CINT2000/254.gap/254.gap.test 13719.00 13715.00 -0.0%
test-suite.../Applications/SPASS/SPASS.test 30345.00 30338.00 -0.0%
test-suite...006/450.soplex/450.soplex.test 15018.00 15016.00 -0.0%
test-suite...ications/JM/lencod/lencod.test 27780.00 27777.00 -0.0%
test-suite.../CINT2006/403.gcc/403.gcc.test 105285.00 105276.00 -0.0%
There might be potential to pre-compute some of the information of which
blocks are on the path to an exit for each block, but the overall
benefit might be comparatively small.
On the set of benchmarks, 15738 times out of 20322 we reach the
CFG check, the CFG check is successful. The total number of iterations
in the CFG check is 187810, so on average we need less than 10 steps in
the check loop. Bumping the threshold in the loop from 50 to 150 gives a
few small improvements, but I don't think they warrant such a big bump
at the moment. This is all pending further tuning in the future.
Reviewers: dmgreen, bryant, asbirlea, Tyker, efriedma, george.burgess.iv
Reviewed By: george.burgess.iv
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78932
This is D77454, except for stores. All the infrastructure work was done
for loads, so the remaining changes necessary are relatively small.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79968
For IR generated by a compiler, this is really simple: you just take the
datalayout from the beginning of the file, and apply it to all the IR
later in the file. For optimization testcases that don't care about the
datalayout, this is also really simple: we just use the default
datalayout.
The complexity here comes from the fact that some LLVM tools allow
overriding the datalayout: some tools have an explicit flag for this,
some tools will infer a datalayout based on the code generation target.
Supporting this properly required plumbing through a bunch of new
machinery: we want to allow overriding the datalayout after the
datalayout is parsed from the file, but before we use any information
from it. Therefore, IR/bitcode parsing now has a callback to allow tools
to compute the datalayout at the appropriate time.
Not sure if I covered all the LLVM tools that want to use the callback.
(clang? lli? Misc IR manipulation tools like llvm-link?). But this is at
least enough for all the LLVM regression tests, and IR without a
datalayout is not something frontends should generate.
This change had some sort of weird effects for certain CodeGen
regression tests: if the datalayout is overridden with a datalayout with
a different program or stack address space, we now parse IR based on the
overridden datalayout, instead of the one written in the file (or the
default one, if none is specified). This broke a few AVR tests, and one
AMDGPU test.
Outside the CodeGen tests I mentioned, the test changes are all just
fixing CHECK lines and moving around datalayout lines in weird places.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78403
We can eliminate MemoryDefs of objects not accessible after the function
returns (e.g. alloca), if there are no reads between the MemoryDef and
any function exits. We can stop traversing paths that completely
overwrite the memory location of the MemoryDef.
This patch was split off D73763.
Reviewers: dmgreen, bryant, asbirlea, Tyker, efriedma, george.burgess.iv
Reviewed By: asbirlea, george.burgess.iv
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D77736
For MemoryPhis, we have to avoid that the MemoryPhi may be executed
before before the access we are currently looking at.
To do this we do a post-order numbering of the basic blocks in the
function and bail out once we reach a MemoryPhi with a larger (or equal)
post-order block number than the current MemoryAccess.
This changes the order in which we visit stores for elimination.
This patch also adds support for exploring multiple paths. We keep a worklist (ToCheck) of memory accesses that might be eliminated by our starting MemoryDef or MemoryPhis for further exploration. For MemoryPhis, we add the incoming values to the worklist, for MemoryDefs we add the defining access.
Reviewers: dmgreen, rnk, efriedma, bryant, asbirlea
Reviewed By: asbirlea
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72148
This reverts commit d0c4d4fe09.
Revert "[DSE,MSSA] Move more passing test cases from todo to simple.ll."
This reverts commit 02266e64bb.
Revert "[DSE,MSSA] Adjust mda-with-dbg-values.ll to MSSA backed DSE."
This reverts commit 74f03e4ff0.
This patch adds a first version of a MemorySSA based DSE. It is missing
a lot of features, which will get added as follow-ups, to help to keep
the review manageable.
The patch uses the following general approach: given a MemoryDef, walk
upwards to find clobbering MemoryDefs that may be killed by the
starting def. Then check that there are no uses that may read the
location of the original MemoryDef in between both MemoryDefs. A bit
more concretely:
For all MemoryDefs StartDef:
1. Get the next dominating clobbering MemoryDef (DomAccess) by walking upwards.
2. Check that there no reads between DomAccess and the StartDef by checking
all uses starting at DomAccess and walking until we see StartDef.
3. For each found DomDef, check that:
1. There are no barrier instructions between DomDef and StartDef (like
throws or stores with ordering constraints).
2. StartDef is executed whenever DomDef is executed.
3. StartDef completely overwrites DomDef.
4. Erase DomDef from the function and MemorySSA.
The patch uses a very simple approach to guarantee that no throwing
instructions are between 2 stores: We only allow accesses to stack
objects, access that are in the same basic block if the block does not
contain any throwing instructions or accesses in functions that do
not contain any throwing instructions. This will get lifted later.
Besides adding support for the missing cases, there is plenty of additional
potential for improvements as follow-up work, e.g. the way we visit stores
(could be just a traversal of the MemorySSA, rather than collecting them
up-front), using the alias information discovered during walking to optimize
the MemorySSA.
This is loosely based on D40480 by Dave Green.
Reviewers: dmgreen, rnk, efriedma, bryant, asbirlea, Tyker
Reviewed By: asbirlea
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72700
This copies the DSE tests into a MSSA subdirectory to test the MemorySSA
backed DSE implementation, without disturbing the original tests.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72145
Arthur Eubanks