Even if there are no interesting functions, the SCCP solver would still run
before bailing. Now bail earlier, avoid running the solver for nothing.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111645
This is a follow up of D110529 that disallowed constexprs. That change
introduced a regression as this also disallowed constexprs that are function
pointers, which is actually one of the motivating use cases that we do want to
support.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111567
Function specialization was crashing on poison values and constexpr values.
The problem is that these values are not added to the solver, so it crashes
when a lookup is performed for these values. This fixes that by not
specialising on these values. For poison that is obvious, but for constexpr
this is a change in behaviour. Thus, in one way this is a bit of a stopgap, but
specialising on constexpr values wasn't done very intentionally, and need some
more work and tests if we wanted to support this.
As a follow up, we need to look if the solver should exit more gracefully and
return a "don't know", or that it should really support these constexprs.
This should fix PR51600 (https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51600).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110529
This introduces an option to allow specialising on the address of global
values. This option is off by default because it is likely not that profitable
to do so and needs more investigation. Before, we were specialising on addresses
and thus this changes the default behaviour.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109775
The MinSize attribute can be attached to both the callee and the caller
in the callsite. Function specialisation was already skipped for function
declarations (callees) with MinSize. This also skips specialisations for
the callsite when it has MinSize set.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109441
It would waste time to specialize a function which would inline finally.
This patch did two things:
- Don't specialize functions which are always-inline.
- Don't spescialize functions whose lines of code are less than threshold
(100 by default).
For spec2017int, this patch could reduce the number of specialized
functions by 33%. Then the compile time didn't increase for every
benchmark.
Reviewed By: SjoerdMeijer, xbolva00, snehasish
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107897
The may get changed before specialization by RunSCCPSolver. In other
words, the pass may change the function without specialization happens.
Add test and comment to reveal this.
And it may return No Changed if the function get changed by
RunSCCPSolver before the specialization. It looks like a potential bug.
Test Plan: check-all
Reviewed By: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107622
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107622
This adds support for specialising recursive functions. For example:
int Global = 1;
void recursiveFunc(int *arg) {
if (*arg < 4) {
print(*arg);
recursiveFunc(*arg + 1);
}
}
void main() {
recursiveFunc(&Global);
}
After 3 iterations of function specialisation, followed by inlining of the
specialised versions of recursiveFunc, the main function looks like this:
void main() {
print(1);
print(2);
print(3);
}
To support this, the following has been added:
- Update the solver and state of the new specialised functions,
- An optimisation to propagate constant stack values after each iteration of
function specialisation, which is necessary for the next iteration to
recognise the constant values and trigger.
Specialising recursive functions is (at the moment) controlled by option
-func-specialization-max-iters and is opt-in for compile-time reasons. I.e.,
the default is -func-specialization-max-iters=1, but for the example above we
would need to use -func-specialization-max-iters=3. Future work is to see if we
can increase the default, or improve the cost-model/heuristics to control
compile-times.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106426
Now the option is off by default. Since we are not sure if this option
would make the compile time increase aggressively. Although we tested it
on SPEC2017, we may need to test more to make it on by default.
Reviewed By: SjoerdMeijer
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104365
Currently, LLParser will create a Function/GlobalVariable forward
reference based on the desired pointer type and then modify it when
it is declared. With opaque pointers, we generally do not know the
correct type to use until we see the declaration.
Solve this by creating the forward reference with a dummy type, and
then performing a RAUW with the correct Function/GlobalVariable when
it is declared. The approach is adopted from
b5b55963f6.
This results in a change to the use list order, which is why we see
test changes on some module passes that are not stable under use list
reordering.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104950
getSpecializationCost was returning INT_MAX for a case when specialisation
shouldn't happen, but this wasn't properly checked if specialisation was
forced.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104461
The original implementation calculating UserBonus uses operator ^, which means XOR in C++
language.
At the first glance of reviewing, I thought it should be power, my bad.
It doesn't make sense to use XOR here. So I believe it should be a
carelessness as I made.
Test Plan: check-all
Reviewed By: SjoerdMeijer
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104282
This adds a function specialization pass to LLVM. Constant parameters
like function pointers and constant globals are propagated to the callee by
specializing the function.
This is a first version with a number of limitations:
- The pass is off by default, so needs to be enabled on the command line,
- It does not handle specialization of recursive functions,
- It does not yet handle constants and constant ranges,
- Only 1 argument per function is specialised,
- The cost-model could be further looked into, and perhaps related,
- We are not yet caching analysis results.
This is based on earlier work by Matthew Simpson (D36432) and Vinay Madhusudan.
More recently this was also discussed on the list, see:
https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-March/149380.html.
The motivation for this work is that function specialisation often comes up as
a reason for performance differences of generated code between LLVM and GCC,
which has this enabled by default from optimisation level -O3 and up. And while
this certainly helps a few cpu benchmark cases, this also triggers in real
world codes and is thus a generally useful transformation to have in LLVM.
Function specialisation has great potential to increase compile-times and
code-size. The summary from some investigations with this patch is:
- Compile-time increases for short compile jobs is high relatively, but the
increase in absolute numbers still low.
- For longer compile-jobs, the extra compile time is around 1%, and very much
in line with GCC.
- It is difficult to blame one thing for compile-time increases: it looks like
everywhere a little bit more time is spent processing more functions and
instructions.
- But the function specialisation pass itself is not very expensive; it doesn't
show up very high in the profile of the optimisation passes.
The goal of this work is to reach parity with GCC which means that eventually
we would like to get this enabled by default. But first we would like to address
some of the limitations before that.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93838
Sjoerd Meijer