2020-01-14 03:09:13 +08:00
|
|
|
; Validate ThinLTO prelink pipeline when we have instrumentation PGO
|
|
|
|
;
|
|
|
|
; RUN: llvm-profdata merge %S/Inputs/new-pm-thinlto-prelink-pgo-defaults.proftext -o %t.profdata
|
2020-04-29 04:25:15 +08:00
|
|
|
;
|
[NewPM] Only invalidate modified functions' analyses in CGSCC passes + turn on eagerly invalidate analyses
Previously, any change in any function in an SCC would cause all
analyses for all functions in the SCC to be invalidated. With this
change, we now manually invalidate analyses for functions we modify,
then let the pass manager know that all function analyses should be
preserved since we've already handled function analysis invalidation.
So far this only touches the inliner, argpromotion, function-attrs, and
updateCGAndAnalysisManager(), since they are the most used.
This is part of an effort to investigate running the function
simplification pipeline less on functions we visit multiple times in the
inliner pipeline.
However, this causes major memory regressions especially on larger IR.
To counteract this, turn on the option to eagerly invalidate function
analyses. This invalidates analyses on functions immediately after
they're processed in a module or scc to function adaptor for specific
parts of the pipeline.
Within an SCC, if a pass only modifies one function, other functions in
the SCC do not have their analyses invalidated, so in later function
passes in the SCC pass manager the analyses may still be cached. It is
only after the function passes that the eager invalidation takes effect.
For the default pipelines this makes sense because the inliner pipeline
runs the function simplification pipeline after all other SCC passes
(except CoroSplit which doesn't request any analyses).
Overall this has mostly positive effects on compile time and positive effects on memory usage.
https://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=7f627596977624730f9298a1b69883af1555765e&to=39e824e0d3ca8a517502f13032dfa67304841c90&stat=instructions
https://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=7f627596977624730f9298a1b69883af1555765e&to=39e824e0d3ca8a517502f13032dfa67304841c90&stat=max-rss
D113196 shows that we slightly regressed compile times in exchange for
some memory improvements when turning on eager invalidation. D100917
shows that we slightly improved compile times in exchange for major
memory regressions in some cases when invalidating less in SCC passes.
Turning these on at the same time keeps the memory improvements while
keeping compile times neutral/slightly positive.
Reviewed By: asbirlea, nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113304
2021-05-04 07:50:26 +08:00
|
|
|
; RUN: opt -disable-verify -verify-cfg-preserved=0 -eagerly-invalidate-analyses=0 -debug-pass-manager \
|
2020-01-14 03:09:13 +08:00
|
|
|
; RUN: -pgo-kind=pgo-instr-use-pipeline -profile-file='%t.profdata' \
|
2020-11-17 04:48:42 +08:00
|
|
|
; RUN: -passes='thinlto-pre-link<O1>' -S %s 2>&1 \
|
2020-12-02 08:15:06 +08:00
|
|
|
; RUN: | FileCheck %s --check-prefixes=CHECK-O,CHECK-O1,CHECK-O123SZ
|
[NewPM] Only invalidate modified functions' analyses in CGSCC passes + turn on eagerly invalidate analyses
Previously, any change in any function in an SCC would cause all
analyses for all functions in the SCC to be invalidated. With this
change, we now manually invalidate analyses for functions we modify,
then let the pass manager know that all function analyses should be
preserved since we've already handled function analysis invalidation.
So far this only touches the inliner, argpromotion, function-attrs, and
updateCGAndAnalysisManager(), since they are the most used.
This is part of an effort to investigate running the function
simplification pipeline less on functions we visit multiple times in the
inliner pipeline.
However, this causes major memory regressions especially on larger IR.
To counteract this, turn on the option to eagerly invalidate function
analyses. This invalidates analyses on functions immediately after
they're processed in a module or scc to function adaptor for specific
parts of the pipeline.
Within an SCC, if a pass only modifies one function, other functions in
the SCC do not have their analyses invalidated, so in later function
passes in the SCC pass manager the analyses may still be cached. It is
only after the function passes that the eager invalidation takes effect.
For the default pipelines this makes sense because the inliner pipeline
runs the function simplification pipeline after all other SCC passes
(except CoroSplit which doesn't request any analyses).
Overall this has mostly positive effects on compile time and positive effects on memory usage.
https://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=7f627596977624730f9298a1b69883af1555765e&to=39e824e0d3ca8a517502f13032dfa67304841c90&stat=instructions
https://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=7f627596977624730f9298a1b69883af1555765e&to=39e824e0d3ca8a517502f13032dfa67304841c90&stat=max-rss
D113196 shows that we slightly regressed compile times in exchange for
some memory improvements when turning on eager invalidation. D100917
shows that we slightly improved compile times in exchange for major
memory regressions in some cases when invalidating less in SCC passes.
Turning these on at the same time keeps the memory improvements while
keeping compile times neutral/slightly positive.
Reviewed By: asbirlea, nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113304
2021-05-04 07:50:26 +08:00
|
|
|
; RUN: opt -disable-verify -verify-cfg-preserved=0 -eagerly-invalidate-analyses=0 -debug-pass-manager \
|
2020-01-14 03:09:13 +08:00
|
|
|
; RUN: -pgo-kind=pgo-instr-use-pipeline -profile-file='%t.profdata' \
|
2020-11-17 04:48:42 +08:00
|
|
|
; RUN: -passes='thinlto-pre-link<O2>' -S %s 2>&1 \
|
2020-12-02 08:15:06 +08:00
|
|
|
; RUN: | FileCheck %s --check-prefixes=CHECK-O,CHECK-O2,CHECK-O23SZ,CHECK-O123SZ
|
[NewPM] Only invalidate modified functions' analyses in CGSCC passes + turn on eagerly invalidate analyses
Previously, any change in any function in an SCC would cause all
analyses for all functions in the SCC to be invalidated. With this
change, we now manually invalidate analyses for functions we modify,
then let the pass manager know that all function analyses should be
preserved since we've already handled function analysis invalidation.
So far this only touches the inliner, argpromotion, function-attrs, and
updateCGAndAnalysisManager(), since they are the most used.
This is part of an effort to investigate running the function
simplification pipeline less on functions we visit multiple times in the
inliner pipeline.
However, this causes major memory regressions especially on larger IR.
To counteract this, turn on the option to eagerly invalidate function
analyses. This invalidates analyses on functions immediately after
they're processed in a module or scc to function adaptor for specific
parts of the pipeline.
Within an SCC, if a pass only modifies one function, other functions in
the SCC do not have their analyses invalidated, so in later function
passes in the SCC pass manager the analyses may still be cached. It is
only after the function passes that the eager invalidation takes effect.
For the default pipelines this makes sense because the inliner pipeline
runs the function simplification pipeline after all other SCC passes
(except CoroSplit which doesn't request any analyses).
Overall this has mostly positive effects on compile time and positive effects on memory usage.
https://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=7f627596977624730f9298a1b69883af1555765e&to=39e824e0d3ca8a517502f13032dfa67304841c90&stat=instructions
https://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=7f627596977624730f9298a1b69883af1555765e&to=39e824e0d3ca8a517502f13032dfa67304841c90&stat=max-rss
D113196 shows that we slightly regressed compile times in exchange for
some memory improvements when turning on eager invalidation. D100917
shows that we slightly improved compile times in exchange for major
memory regressions in some cases when invalidating less in SCC passes.
Turning these on at the same time keeps the memory improvements while
keeping compile times neutral/slightly positive.
Reviewed By: asbirlea, nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113304
2021-05-04 07:50:26 +08:00
|
|
|
; RUN: opt -disable-verify -verify-cfg-preserved=0 -eagerly-invalidate-analyses=0 -debug-pass-manager \
|
2020-01-14 03:09:13 +08:00
|
|
|
; RUN: -pgo-kind=pgo-instr-use-pipeline -profile-file='%t.profdata' \
|
2020-11-17 04:48:42 +08:00
|
|
|
; RUN: -passes='thinlto-pre-link<O3>' -S -passes-ep-pipeline-start='no-op-module' %s 2>&1 \
|
2020-12-02 08:15:06 +08:00
|
|
|
; RUN: | FileCheck %s --check-prefixes=CHECK-O,CHECK-O3,CHECK-O23SZ,CHECK-O123SZ,CHECK-EP-PIPELINE-START
|
[NewPM] Only invalidate modified functions' analyses in CGSCC passes + turn on eagerly invalidate analyses
Previously, any change in any function in an SCC would cause all
analyses for all functions in the SCC to be invalidated. With this
change, we now manually invalidate analyses for functions we modify,
then let the pass manager know that all function analyses should be
preserved since we've already handled function analysis invalidation.
So far this only touches the inliner, argpromotion, function-attrs, and
updateCGAndAnalysisManager(), since they are the most used.
This is part of an effort to investigate running the function
simplification pipeline less on functions we visit multiple times in the
inliner pipeline.
However, this causes major memory regressions especially on larger IR.
To counteract this, turn on the option to eagerly invalidate function
analyses. This invalidates analyses on functions immediately after
they're processed in a module or scc to function adaptor for specific
parts of the pipeline.
Within an SCC, if a pass only modifies one function, other functions in
the SCC do not have their analyses invalidated, so in later function
passes in the SCC pass manager the analyses may still be cached. It is
only after the function passes that the eager invalidation takes effect.
For the default pipelines this makes sense because the inliner pipeline
runs the function simplification pipeline after all other SCC passes
(except CoroSplit which doesn't request any analyses).
Overall this has mostly positive effects on compile time and positive effects on memory usage.
https://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=7f627596977624730f9298a1b69883af1555765e&to=39e824e0d3ca8a517502f13032dfa67304841c90&stat=instructions
https://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=7f627596977624730f9298a1b69883af1555765e&to=39e824e0d3ca8a517502f13032dfa67304841c90&stat=max-rss
D113196 shows that we slightly regressed compile times in exchange for
some memory improvements when turning on eager invalidation. D100917
shows that we slightly improved compile times in exchange for major
memory regressions in some cases when invalidating less in SCC passes.
Turning these on at the same time keeps the memory improvements while
keeping compile times neutral/slightly positive.
Reviewed By: asbirlea, nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113304
2021-05-04 07:50:26 +08:00
|
|
|
; RUN: opt -disable-verify -verify-cfg-preserved=0 -eagerly-invalidate-analyses=0 -debug-pass-manager \
|
2020-01-14 03:09:13 +08:00
|
|
|
; RUN: -pgo-kind=pgo-instr-use-pipeline -profile-file='%t.profdata' \
|
2020-11-17 04:48:42 +08:00
|
|
|
; RUN: -passes='thinlto-pre-link<Os>' -S %s 2>&1 \
|
2020-12-02 08:15:06 +08:00
|
|
|
; RUN: | FileCheck %s --check-prefixes=CHECK-O,CHECK-O123SZ,CHECK-Os,CHECK-O23SZ
|
[NewPM] Only invalidate modified functions' analyses in CGSCC passes + turn on eagerly invalidate analyses
Previously, any change in any function in an SCC would cause all
analyses for all functions in the SCC to be invalidated. With this
change, we now manually invalidate analyses for functions we modify,
then let the pass manager know that all function analyses should be
preserved since we've already handled function analysis invalidation.
So far this only touches the inliner, argpromotion, function-attrs, and
updateCGAndAnalysisManager(), since they are the most used.
This is part of an effort to investigate running the function
simplification pipeline less on functions we visit multiple times in the
inliner pipeline.
However, this causes major memory regressions especially on larger IR.
To counteract this, turn on the option to eagerly invalidate function
analyses. This invalidates analyses on functions immediately after
they're processed in a module or scc to function adaptor for specific
parts of the pipeline.
Within an SCC, if a pass only modifies one function, other functions in
the SCC do not have their analyses invalidated, so in later function
passes in the SCC pass manager the analyses may still be cached. It is
only after the function passes that the eager invalidation takes effect.
For the default pipelines this makes sense because the inliner pipeline
runs the function simplification pipeline after all other SCC passes
(except CoroSplit which doesn't request any analyses).
Overall this has mostly positive effects on compile time and positive effects on memory usage.
https://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=7f627596977624730f9298a1b69883af1555765e&to=39e824e0d3ca8a517502f13032dfa67304841c90&stat=instructions
https://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=7f627596977624730f9298a1b69883af1555765e&to=39e824e0d3ca8a517502f13032dfa67304841c90&stat=max-rss
D113196 shows that we slightly regressed compile times in exchange for
some memory improvements when turning on eager invalidation. D100917
shows that we slightly improved compile times in exchange for major
memory regressions in some cases when invalidating less in SCC passes.
Turning these on at the same time keeps the memory improvements while
keeping compile times neutral/slightly positive.
Reviewed By: asbirlea, nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113304
2021-05-04 07:50:26 +08:00
|
|
|
; RUN: opt -disable-verify -verify-cfg-preserved=0 -eagerly-invalidate-analyses=0 -debug-pass-manager \
|
2020-01-14 03:09:13 +08:00
|
|
|
; RUN: -pgo-kind=pgo-instr-use-pipeline -profile-file='%t.profdata' \
|
2020-11-17 04:48:42 +08:00
|
|
|
; RUN: -passes='thinlto-pre-link<Oz>' -S %s 2>&1 \
|
2020-12-02 08:15:06 +08:00
|
|
|
; RUN: | FileCheck %s --check-prefixes=CHECK-O,CHECK-O123SZ,CHECK-Oz,CHECK-O23SZ
|
[NewPM] Only invalidate modified functions' analyses in CGSCC passes + turn on eagerly invalidate analyses
Previously, any change in any function in an SCC would cause all
analyses for all functions in the SCC to be invalidated. With this
change, we now manually invalidate analyses for functions we modify,
then let the pass manager know that all function analyses should be
preserved since we've already handled function analysis invalidation.
So far this only touches the inliner, argpromotion, function-attrs, and
updateCGAndAnalysisManager(), since they are the most used.
This is part of an effort to investigate running the function
simplification pipeline less on functions we visit multiple times in the
inliner pipeline.
However, this causes major memory regressions especially on larger IR.
To counteract this, turn on the option to eagerly invalidate function
analyses. This invalidates analyses on functions immediately after
they're processed in a module or scc to function adaptor for specific
parts of the pipeline.
Within an SCC, if a pass only modifies one function, other functions in
the SCC do not have their analyses invalidated, so in later function
passes in the SCC pass manager the analyses may still be cached. It is
only after the function passes that the eager invalidation takes effect.
For the default pipelines this makes sense because the inliner pipeline
runs the function simplification pipeline after all other SCC passes
(except CoroSplit which doesn't request any analyses).
Overall this has mostly positive effects on compile time and positive effects on memory usage.
https://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=7f627596977624730f9298a1b69883af1555765e&to=39e824e0d3ca8a517502f13032dfa67304841c90&stat=instructions
https://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=7f627596977624730f9298a1b69883af1555765e&to=39e824e0d3ca8a517502f13032dfa67304841c90&stat=max-rss
D113196 shows that we slightly regressed compile times in exchange for
some memory improvements when turning on eager invalidation. D100917
shows that we slightly improved compile times in exchange for major
memory regressions in some cases when invalidating less in SCC passes.
Turning these on at the same time keeps the memory improvements while
keeping compile times neutral/slightly positive.
Reviewed By: asbirlea, nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113304
2021-05-04 07:50:26 +08:00
|
|
|
; RUN: opt -disable-verify -verify-cfg-preserved=0 -eagerly-invalidate-analyses=0 -debug-pass-manager -new-pm-debug-info-for-profiling \
|
2020-01-14 03:09:13 +08:00
|
|
|
; RUN: -pgo-kind=pgo-instr-use-pipeline -profile-file='%t.profdata' \
|
2020-11-17 04:48:42 +08:00
|
|
|
; RUN: -passes='thinlto-pre-link<O2>' -S %s 2>&1 \
|
2020-12-02 08:15:06 +08:00
|
|
|
; RUN: | FileCheck %s --check-prefixes=CHECK-O,CHECK-O2,CHECK-O23SZ,CHECK-O123SZ
|
2020-01-14 03:09:13 +08:00
|
|
|
;
|
2021-05-04 07:09:56 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O: Running pass: Annotation2Metadata
|
2020-01-14 03:09:13 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: ForceFunctionAttrsPass
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-EP-PIPELINE-START-NEXT: Running pass: NoOpModulePass
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: InferFunctionAttrsPass
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: InnerAnalysisManagerProxy
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: TargetLibraryAnalysis
|
2022-04-13 17:03:13 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: CoroEarlyPass
|
2021-04-13 02:51:51 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: LowerExpectIntrinsicPass
|
2020-01-14 03:09:13 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: SimplifyCFGPass
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: TargetIRAnalysis
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: AssumptionAnalysis
|
2021-11-01 23:56:48 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: SROAPass
|
2020-01-14 03:09:13 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: DominatorTreeAnalysis
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: EarlyCSEPass
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: TargetLibraryAnalysis
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O3-NEXT: Running pass: CallSiteSplittingPass
|
2021-06-29 03:56:10 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: OpenMPOptPass
|
2020-01-14 03:09:13 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: IPSCCPPass
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: CalledValuePropagationPass
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: GlobalOptPass
|
2020-07-29 08:08:24 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: PromotePass
|
2020-01-14 03:09:13 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: DeadArgumentEliminationPass
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: InstCombinePass
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: OptimizationRemarkEmitterAnalysis
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: AAManager
|
2021-01-21 08:53:03 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: BasicAA
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: ScopedNoAliasAA
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: TypeBasedAA
|
2020-01-14 03:09:13 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: OuterAnalysisManagerProxy
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: SimplifyCFGPass
|
2020-12-02 08:15:06 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O123SZ-NEXT: Running pass: ModuleInlinerWrapperPass
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O123SZ-NEXT: Running analysis: InlineAdvisorAnalysis
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O123SZ-NEXT: Running analysis: InnerAnalysisManagerProxy
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O123SZ-NEXT: Running analysis: LazyCallGraphAnalysis
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O123SZ-NEXT: Running analysis: FunctionAnalysisManagerCGSCCProxy on (foo)
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O123SZ-NEXT: Running analysis: OuterAnalysisManagerProxy
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O123SZ-NEXT: Running pass: InlinerPass on (foo)
|
2021-01-16 05:56:57 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O123SZ-NEXT: Running pass: InlinerPass on (foo)
|
2021-11-01 23:56:48 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O123SZ-NEXT: Running pass: SROAPass on foo
|
2020-12-02 08:15:06 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O123SZ-NEXT: Running pass: EarlyCSEPass on foo
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O123SZ-NEXT: Running pass: SimplifyCFGPass on foo
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O123SZ-NEXT: Running pass: InstCombinePass on foo
|
2021-10-12 07:43:28 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O123SZ-NEXT: Invalidating analysis: InlineAdvisorAnalysis
|
2020-12-02 08:15:06 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O123SZ-NEXT: Running pass: GlobalDCEPass
|
2020-01-14 03:09:13 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: PGOInstrumentationUse
|
|
|
|
; These next two can appear in any order since they are accessed as parameters
|
|
|
|
; on the same call to BlockFrequencyInfo::calculate.
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-DAG: Running analysis: BranchProbabilityAnalysis on foo
|
2020-04-28 17:31:20 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-DAG: Running analysis: PostDominatorTreeAnalysis on foo
|
2020-01-14 03:09:13 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-DAG: Running analysis: LoopAnalysis on foo
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: BlockFrequencyAnalysis on foo
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Invalidating analysis: InnerAnalysisManagerProxy
|
2020-12-02 08:15:06 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O123SZ-NEXT: Invalidating analysis: LazyCallGraphAnalysis on
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O123SZ-NEXT: Invalidating analysis: InnerAnalysisManagerProxy
|
2020-01-14 03:09:13 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: RequireAnalysisPass<{{.*}}ProfileSummaryAnalysis
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: PGOIndirectCallPromotion on
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: InnerAnalysisManagerProxy
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: OptimizationRemarkEmitterAnalysis on foo
|
2020-04-29 04:25:15 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: ModuleInlinerWrapperPass
|
2021-10-12 07:43:28 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: InlineAdvisorAnalysis
|
[PassManager] Run additional LICM before LoopRotate
Loop rotation often has to perform code duplication
from header into preheader, which introduces PHI nodes.
>>! In D99204, @thopre wrote:
>
> With loop peeling, it is important that unnecessary PHIs be avoided or
> it will leads to spurious peeling. One source of such PHIs is loop
> rotation which creates PHIs for invariant loads. Those PHIs are
> particularly problematic since loop peeling is now run as part of simple
> loop unrolling before GVN is run, and are thus a source of spurious
> peeling.
>
> Note that while some of the load can be hoisted and eventually
> eliminated by instruction combine, this is not always possible due to
> alignment issue. In particular, the motivating example [1] was a load
> inside a class instance which cannot be hoisted because the `this'
> pointer has an alignment of 1.
>
> [1] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20210312/4ce73c47/attachment.cpp
Now, we could enhance LoopRotate to avoid duplicating code when not needed,
but instead hoist loop-invariant code, but isn't that a code duplication? (*sic*)
We have LICM, and in fact we already run it right after LoopRotation.
We could try to move it to before LoopRotation,
that is basically free from compile-time perspective:
https://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=6c93eb4477d88af046b915bc955c03693b2cbb58&to=a4bee6d07732b1184c436da489040b912f0dc271&stat=instructions
But, looking at stats, i think it isn't great that we would no longer do LICM after LoopRotation, in particular:
| statistic name | LoopRotate-LICM | LICM-LoopRotate | Δ | % | abs(%) |
| asm-printer.EmittedInsts | 9015930 | 9015799 | -131 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| indvars.NumElimCmp | 3536 | 3544 | 8 | 0.23% | 0.23% |
| indvars.NumElimExt | 36725 | 36580 | -145 | -0.39% | 0.39% |
| indvars.NumElimIV | 1197 | 1187 | -10 | -0.84% | 0.84% |
| indvars.NumElimIdentity | 143 | 136 | -7 | -4.90% | 4.90% |
| indvars.NumElimRem | 4 | 5 | 1 | 25.00% | 25.00% |
| indvars.NumLFTR | 29842 | 29890 | 48 | 0.16% | 0.16% |
| indvars.NumReplaced | 2293 | 2227 | -66 | -2.88% | 2.88% |
| indvars.NumSimplifiedSDiv | 6 | 8 | 2 | 33.33% | 33.33% |
| indvars.NumWidened | 26438 | 26329 | -109 | -0.41% | 0.41% |
| instcount.TotalBlocks | 1178338 | 1173840 | -4498 | -0.38% | 0.38% |
| instcount.TotalFuncs | 111825 | 111829 | 4 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| instcount.TotalInsts | 9905442 | 9896139 | -9303 | -0.09% | 0.09% |
| lcssa.NumLCSSA | 425871 | 423961 | -1910 | -0.45% | 0.45% |
| licm.NumHoisted | 378357 | 378753 | 396 | 0.10% | 0.10% |
| licm.NumMovedCalls | 2193 | 2208 | 15 | 0.68% | 0.68% |
| licm.NumMovedLoads | 35899 | 31821 | -4078 | -11.36% | 11.36% |
| licm.NumPromoted | 11178 | 11154 | -24 | -0.21% | 0.21% |
| licm.NumSunk | 13359 | 13587 | 228 | 1.71% | 1.71% |
| loop-delete.NumDeleted | 8547 | 8402 | -145 | -1.70% | 1.70% |
| loop-instsimplify.NumSimplified | 12876 | 11890 | -986 | -7.66% | 7.66% |
| loop-peel.NumPeeled | 1008 | 925 | -83 | -8.23% | 8.23% |
| loop-rotate.NumNotRotatedDueToHeaderSize | 368 | 365 | -3 | -0.82% | 0.82% |
| loop-rotate.NumRotated | 42015 | 42003 | -12 | -0.03% | 0.03% |
| loop-simplifycfg.NumLoopBlocksDeleted | 240 | 242 | 2 | 0.83% | 0.83% |
| loop-simplifycfg.NumLoopExitsDeleted | 497 | 20 | -477 | -95.98% | 95.98% |
| loop-simplifycfg.NumTerminatorsFolded | 618 | 336 | -282 | -45.63% | 45.63% |
| loop-unroll.NumCompletelyUnrolled | 11028 | 11032 | 4 | 0.04% | 0.04% |
| loop-unroll.NumUnrolled | 12608 | 12529 | -79 | -0.63% | 0.63% |
| mem2reg.NumDeadAlloca | 10222 | 10221 | -1 | -0.01% | 0.01% |
| mem2reg.NumPHIInsert | 192110 | 192106 | -4 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| mem2reg.NumSingleStore | 637650 | 637643 | -7 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| scalar-evolution.NumBruteForceTripCountsComputed | 814 | 812 | -2 | -0.25% | 0.25% |
| scalar-evolution.NumTripCountsComputed | 283108 | 282934 | -174 | -0.06% | 0.06% |
| scalar-evolution.NumTripCountsNotComputed | 106712 | 106718 | 6 | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| simple-loop-unswitch.NumBranches | 5178 | 4752 | -426 | -8.23% | 8.23% |
| simple-loop-unswitch.NumCostMultiplierSkipped | 914 | 503 | -411 | -44.97% | 44.97% |
| simple-loop-unswitch.NumSwitches | 20 | 18 | -2 | -10.00% | 10.00% |
| simple-loop-unswitch.NumTrivial | 183 | 95 | -88 | -48.09% | 48.09% |
... but that actually regresses LICM (-12% `licm.NumMovedLoads`),
loop-simplifycfg (`NumLoopExitsDeleted`, `NumTerminatorsFolded`),
simple-loop-unswitch (`NumTrivial`).
What if we instead have LICM both before and after LoopRotate?
| statistic name | LoopRotate-LICM | LICM-LoopRotate-LICM | Δ | % | abs(%) |
| asm-printer.EmittedInsts | 9015930 | 9014474 | -1456 | -0.02% | 0.02% |
| indvars.NumElimCmp | 3536 | 3546 | 10 | 0.28% | 0.28% |
| indvars.NumElimExt | 36725 | 36681 | -44 | -0.12% | 0.12% |
| indvars.NumElimIV | 1197 | 1185 | -12 | -1.00% | 1.00% |
| indvars.NumElimIdentity | 143 | 146 | 3 | 2.10% | 2.10% |
| indvars.NumElimRem | 4 | 5 | 1 | 25.00% | 25.00% |
| indvars.NumLFTR | 29842 | 29899 | 57 | 0.19% | 0.19% |
| indvars.NumReplaced | 2293 | 2299 | 6 | 0.26% | 0.26% |
| indvars.NumSimplifiedSDiv | 6 | 8 | 2 | 33.33% | 33.33% |
| indvars.NumWidened | 26438 | 26404 | -34 | -0.13% | 0.13% |
| instcount.TotalBlocks | 1178338 | 1173652 | -4686 | -0.40% | 0.40% |
| instcount.TotalFuncs | 111825 | 111829 | 4 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| instcount.TotalInsts | 9905442 | 9895452 | -9990 | -0.10% | 0.10% |
| lcssa.NumLCSSA | 425871 | 425373 | -498 | -0.12% | 0.12% |
| licm.NumHoisted | 378357 | 383352 | 4995 | 1.32% | 1.32% |
| licm.NumMovedCalls | 2193 | 2204 | 11 | 0.50% | 0.50% |
| licm.NumMovedLoads | 35899 | 35755 | -144 | -0.40% | 0.40% |
| licm.NumPromoted | 11178 | 11163 | -15 | -0.13% | 0.13% |
| licm.NumSunk | 13359 | 14321 | 962 | 7.20% | 7.20% |
| loop-delete.NumDeleted | 8547 | 8538 | -9 | -0.11% | 0.11% |
| loop-instsimplify.NumSimplified | 12876 | 12041 | -835 | -6.48% | 6.48% |
| loop-peel.NumPeeled | 1008 | 924 | -84 | -8.33% | 8.33% |
| loop-rotate.NumNotRotatedDueToHeaderSize | 368 | 365 | -3 | -0.82% | 0.82% |
| loop-rotate.NumRotated | 42015 | 42005 | -10 | -0.02% | 0.02% |
| loop-simplifycfg.NumLoopBlocksDeleted | 240 | 241 | 1 | 0.42% | 0.42% |
| loop-simplifycfg.NumTerminatorsFolded | 618 | 619 | 1 | 0.16% | 0.16% |
| loop-unroll.NumCompletelyUnrolled | 11028 | 11029 | 1 | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| loop-unroll.NumUnrolled | 12608 | 12525 | -83 | -0.66% | 0.66% |
| mem2reg.NumPHIInsert | 192110 | 192073 | -37 | -0.02% | 0.02% |
| mem2reg.NumSingleStore | 637650 | 637652 | 2 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| scalar-evolution.NumTripCountsComputed | 283108 | 282998 | -110 | -0.04% | 0.04% |
| scalar-evolution.NumTripCountsNotComputed | 106712 | 106691 | -21 | -0.02% | 0.02% |
| simple-loop-unswitch.NumBranches | 5178 | 5185 | 7 | 0.14% | 0.14% |
| simple-loop-unswitch.NumCostMultiplierSkipped | 914 | 925 | 11 | 1.20% | 1.20% |
| simple-loop-unswitch.NumTrivial | 183 | 179 | -4 | -2.19% | 2.19% |
| simple-loop-unswitch.NumBranches | 5178 | 4752 | -426 | -8.23% | 8.23% |
| simple-loop-unswitch.NumCostMultiplierSkipped | 914 | 503 | -411 | -44.97% | 44.97% |
| simple-loop-unswitch.NumSwitches | 20 | 18 | -2 | -10.00% | 10.00% |
| simple-loop-unswitch.NumTrivial | 183 | 95 | -88 | -48.09% | 48.09% |
I.e. we end up with less instructions, less peeling, more LICM activity,
also note how none of those 4 regressions are here. Namely:
| statistic name | LICM-LoopRotate | LICM-LoopRotate-LICM | Δ | % | abs(%) |
| asm-printer.EmittedInsts | 9015799 | 9014474 | -1325 | -0.01% | 0.01% |
| indvars.NumElimCmp | 3544 | 3546 | 2 | 0.06% | 0.06% |
| indvars.NumElimExt | 36580 | 36681 | 101 | 0.28% | 0.28% |
| indvars.NumElimIV | 1187 | 1185 | -2 | -0.17% | 0.17% |
| indvars.NumElimIdentity | 136 | 146 | 10 | 7.35% | 7.35% |
| indvars.NumLFTR | 29890 | 29899 | 9 | 0.03% | 0.03% |
| indvars.NumReplaced | 2227 | 2299 | 72 | 3.23% | 3.23% |
| indvars.NumWidened | 26329 | 26404 | 75 | 0.28% | 0.28% |
| instcount.TotalBlocks | 1173840 | 1173652 | -188 | -0.02% | 0.02% |
| instcount.TotalInsts | 9896139 | 9895452 | -687 | -0.01% | 0.01% |
| lcssa.NumLCSSA | 423961 | 425373 | 1412 | 0.33% | 0.33% |
| licm.NumHoisted | 378753 | 383352 | 4599 | 1.21% | 1.21% |
| licm.NumMovedCalls | 2208 | 2204 | -4 | -0.18% | 0.18% |
| licm.NumMovedLoads | 31821 | 35755 | 3934 | 12.36% | 12.36% |
| licm.NumPromoted | 11154 | 11163 | 9 | 0.08% | 0.08% |
| licm.NumSunk | 13587 | 14321 | 734 | 5.40% | 5.40% |
| loop-delete.NumDeleted | 8402 | 8538 | 136 | 1.62% | 1.62% |
| loop-instsimplify.NumSimplified | 11890 | 12041 | 151 | 1.27% | 1.27% |
| loop-peel.NumPeeled | 925 | 924 | -1 | -0.11% | 0.11% |
| loop-rotate.NumRotated | 42003 | 42005 | 2 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| loop-simplifycfg.NumLoopBlocksDeleted | 242 | 241 | -1 | -0.41% | 0.41% |
| loop-simplifycfg.NumLoopExitsDeleted | 20 | 497 | 477 | 2385.00% | 2385.00% |
| loop-simplifycfg.NumTerminatorsFolded | 336 | 619 | 283 | 84.23% | 84.23% |
| loop-unroll.NumCompletelyUnrolled | 11032 | 11029 | -3 | -0.03% | 0.03% |
| loop-unroll.NumUnrolled | 12529 | 12525 | -4 | -0.03% | 0.03% |
| mem2reg.NumDeadAlloca | 10221 | 10222 | 1 | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| mem2reg.NumPHIInsert | 192106 | 192073 | -33 | -0.02% | 0.02% |
| mem2reg.NumSingleStore | 637643 | 637652 | 9 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| scalar-evolution.NumBruteForceTripCountsComputed | 812 | 814 | 2 | 0.25% | 0.25% |
| scalar-evolution.NumTripCountsComputed | 282934 | 282998 | 64 | 0.02% | 0.02% |
| scalar-evolution.NumTripCountsNotComputed | 106718 | 106691 | -27 | -0.03% | 0.03% |
| simple-loop-unswitch.NumBranches | 4752 | 5185 | 433 | 9.11% | 9.11% |
| simple-loop-unswitch.NumCostMultiplierSkipped | 503 | 925 | 422 | 83.90% | 83.90% |
| simple-loop-unswitch.NumSwitches | 18 | 20 | 2 | 11.11% | 11.11% |
| simple-loop-unswitch.NumTrivial | 95 | 179 | 84 | 88.42% | 88.42% |
{F15983613} {F15983615} {F15983616}
(this is vanilla llvm testsuite + rawspeed + darktable)
As an example of the code where early LICM only is bad, see:
https://godbolt.org/z/GzEbacs4K
This does have an observable compile-time regression of +~0.5% geomean
https://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=7c5222e4d1a3a14f029e5f614c9aefd0fa505f1e&to=5d81826c3411982ca26e46b9d0aff34c80577664&stat=instructions
but i think that's basically nothing, and there's potential that it might
be avoidable in the future by fixing clang to produce alignment information
on function arguments, thus making the second run unneeded.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99249
2021-04-02 15:40:12 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: RequireAnalysisPass<{{.*}}GlobalsAA
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: GlobalsAA
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: CallGraphAnalysis
|
2021-04-27 23:56:11 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: InvalidateAnalysisPass<{{.*}}AAManager
|
[PassManager] Run additional LICM before LoopRotate
Loop rotation often has to perform code duplication
from header into preheader, which introduces PHI nodes.
>>! In D99204, @thopre wrote:
>
> With loop peeling, it is important that unnecessary PHIs be avoided or
> it will leads to spurious peeling. One source of such PHIs is loop
> rotation which creates PHIs for invariant loads. Those PHIs are
> particularly problematic since loop peeling is now run as part of simple
> loop unrolling before GVN is run, and are thus a source of spurious
> peeling.
>
> Note that while some of the load can be hoisted and eventually
> eliminated by instruction combine, this is not always possible due to
> alignment issue. In particular, the motivating example [1] was a load
> inside a class instance which cannot be hoisted because the `this'
> pointer has an alignment of 1.
>
> [1] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20210312/4ce73c47/attachment.cpp
Now, we could enhance LoopRotate to avoid duplicating code when not needed,
but instead hoist loop-invariant code, but isn't that a code duplication? (*sic*)
We have LICM, and in fact we already run it right after LoopRotation.
We could try to move it to before LoopRotation,
that is basically free from compile-time perspective:
https://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=6c93eb4477d88af046b915bc955c03693b2cbb58&to=a4bee6d07732b1184c436da489040b912f0dc271&stat=instructions
But, looking at stats, i think it isn't great that we would no longer do LICM after LoopRotation, in particular:
| statistic name | LoopRotate-LICM | LICM-LoopRotate | Δ | % | abs(%) |
| asm-printer.EmittedInsts | 9015930 | 9015799 | -131 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| indvars.NumElimCmp | 3536 | 3544 | 8 | 0.23% | 0.23% |
| indvars.NumElimExt | 36725 | 36580 | -145 | -0.39% | 0.39% |
| indvars.NumElimIV | 1197 | 1187 | -10 | -0.84% | 0.84% |
| indvars.NumElimIdentity | 143 | 136 | -7 | -4.90% | 4.90% |
| indvars.NumElimRem | 4 | 5 | 1 | 25.00% | 25.00% |
| indvars.NumLFTR | 29842 | 29890 | 48 | 0.16% | 0.16% |
| indvars.NumReplaced | 2293 | 2227 | -66 | -2.88% | 2.88% |
| indvars.NumSimplifiedSDiv | 6 | 8 | 2 | 33.33% | 33.33% |
| indvars.NumWidened | 26438 | 26329 | -109 | -0.41% | 0.41% |
| instcount.TotalBlocks | 1178338 | 1173840 | -4498 | -0.38% | 0.38% |
| instcount.TotalFuncs | 111825 | 111829 | 4 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| instcount.TotalInsts | 9905442 | 9896139 | -9303 | -0.09% | 0.09% |
| lcssa.NumLCSSA | 425871 | 423961 | -1910 | -0.45% | 0.45% |
| licm.NumHoisted | 378357 | 378753 | 396 | 0.10% | 0.10% |
| licm.NumMovedCalls | 2193 | 2208 | 15 | 0.68% | 0.68% |
| licm.NumMovedLoads | 35899 | 31821 | -4078 | -11.36% | 11.36% |
| licm.NumPromoted | 11178 | 11154 | -24 | -0.21% | 0.21% |
| licm.NumSunk | 13359 | 13587 | 228 | 1.71% | 1.71% |
| loop-delete.NumDeleted | 8547 | 8402 | -145 | -1.70% | 1.70% |
| loop-instsimplify.NumSimplified | 12876 | 11890 | -986 | -7.66% | 7.66% |
| loop-peel.NumPeeled | 1008 | 925 | -83 | -8.23% | 8.23% |
| loop-rotate.NumNotRotatedDueToHeaderSize | 368 | 365 | -3 | -0.82% | 0.82% |
| loop-rotate.NumRotated | 42015 | 42003 | -12 | -0.03% | 0.03% |
| loop-simplifycfg.NumLoopBlocksDeleted | 240 | 242 | 2 | 0.83% | 0.83% |
| loop-simplifycfg.NumLoopExitsDeleted | 497 | 20 | -477 | -95.98% | 95.98% |
| loop-simplifycfg.NumTerminatorsFolded | 618 | 336 | -282 | -45.63% | 45.63% |
| loop-unroll.NumCompletelyUnrolled | 11028 | 11032 | 4 | 0.04% | 0.04% |
| loop-unroll.NumUnrolled | 12608 | 12529 | -79 | -0.63% | 0.63% |
| mem2reg.NumDeadAlloca | 10222 | 10221 | -1 | -0.01% | 0.01% |
| mem2reg.NumPHIInsert | 192110 | 192106 | -4 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| mem2reg.NumSingleStore | 637650 | 637643 | -7 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| scalar-evolution.NumBruteForceTripCountsComputed | 814 | 812 | -2 | -0.25% | 0.25% |
| scalar-evolution.NumTripCountsComputed | 283108 | 282934 | -174 | -0.06% | 0.06% |
| scalar-evolution.NumTripCountsNotComputed | 106712 | 106718 | 6 | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| simple-loop-unswitch.NumBranches | 5178 | 4752 | -426 | -8.23% | 8.23% |
| simple-loop-unswitch.NumCostMultiplierSkipped | 914 | 503 | -411 | -44.97% | 44.97% |
| simple-loop-unswitch.NumSwitches | 20 | 18 | -2 | -10.00% | 10.00% |
| simple-loop-unswitch.NumTrivial | 183 | 95 | -88 | -48.09% | 48.09% |
... but that actually regresses LICM (-12% `licm.NumMovedLoads`),
loop-simplifycfg (`NumLoopExitsDeleted`, `NumTerminatorsFolded`),
simple-loop-unswitch (`NumTrivial`).
What if we instead have LICM both before and after LoopRotate?
| statistic name | LoopRotate-LICM | LICM-LoopRotate-LICM | Δ | % | abs(%) |
| asm-printer.EmittedInsts | 9015930 | 9014474 | -1456 | -0.02% | 0.02% |
| indvars.NumElimCmp | 3536 | 3546 | 10 | 0.28% | 0.28% |
| indvars.NumElimExt | 36725 | 36681 | -44 | -0.12% | 0.12% |
| indvars.NumElimIV | 1197 | 1185 | -12 | -1.00% | 1.00% |
| indvars.NumElimIdentity | 143 | 146 | 3 | 2.10% | 2.10% |
| indvars.NumElimRem | 4 | 5 | 1 | 25.00% | 25.00% |
| indvars.NumLFTR | 29842 | 29899 | 57 | 0.19% | 0.19% |
| indvars.NumReplaced | 2293 | 2299 | 6 | 0.26% | 0.26% |
| indvars.NumSimplifiedSDiv | 6 | 8 | 2 | 33.33% | 33.33% |
| indvars.NumWidened | 26438 | 26404 | -34 | -0.13% | 0.13% |
| instcount.TotalBlocks | 1178338 | 1173652 | -4686 | -0.40% | 0.40% |
| instcount.TotalFuncs | 111825 | 111829 | 4 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| instcount.TotalInsts | 9905442 | 9895452 | -9990 | -0.10% | 0.10% |
| lcssa.NumLCSSA | 425871 | 425373 | -498 | -0.12% | 0.12% |
| licm.NumHoisted | 378357 | 383352 | 4995 | 1.32% | 1.32% |
| licm.NumMovedCalls | 2193 | 2204 | 11 | 0.50% | 0.50% |
| licm.NumMovedLoads | 35899 | 35755 | -144 | -0.40% | 0.40% |
| licm.NumPromoted | 11178 | 11163 | -15 | -0.13% | 0.13% |
| licm.NumSunk | 13359 | 14321 | 962 | 7.20% | 7.20% |
| loop-delete.NumDeleted | 8547 | 8538 | -9 | -0.11% | 0.11% |
| loop-instsimplify.NumSimplified | 12876 | 12041 | -835 | -6.48% | 6.48% |
| loop-peel.NumPeeled | 1008 | 924 | -84 | -8.33% | 8.33% |
| loop-rotate.NumNotRotatedDueToHeaderSize | 368 | 365 | -3 | -0.82% | 0.82% |
| loop-rotate.NumRotated | 42015 | 42005 | -10 | -0.02% | 0.02% |
| loop-simplifycfg.NumLoopBlocksDeleted | 240 | 241 | 1 | 0.42% | 0.42% |
| loop-simplifycfg.NumTerminatorsFolded | 618 | 619 | 1 | 0.16% | 0.16% |
| loop-unroll.NumCompletelyUnrolled | 11028 | 11029 | 1 | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| loop-unroll.NumUnrolled | 12608 | 12525 | -83 | -0.66% | 0.66% |
| mem2reg.NumPHIInsert | 192110 | 192073 | -37 | -0.02% | 0.02% |
| mem2reg.NumSingleStore | 637650 | 637652 | 2 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| scalar-evolution.NumTripCountsComputed | 283108 | 282998 | -110 | -0.04% | 0.04% |
| scalar-evolution.NumTripCountsNotComputed | 106712 | 106691 | -21 | -0.02% | 0.02% |
| simple-loop-unswitch.NumBranches | 5178 | 5185 | 7 | 0.14% | 0.14% |
| simple-loop-unswitch.NumCostMultiplierSkipped | 914 | 925 | 11 | 1.20% | 1.20% |
| simple-loop-unswitch.NumTrivial | 183 | 179 | -4 | -2.19% | 2.19% |
| simple-loop-unswitch.NumBranches | 5178 | 4752 | -426 | -8.23% | 8.23% |
| simple-loop-unswitch.NumCostMultiplierSkipped | 914 | 503 | -411 | -44.97% | 44.97% |
| simple-loop-unswitch.NumSwitches | 20 | 18 | -2 | -10.00% | 10.00% |
| simple-loop-unswitch.NumTrivial | 183 | 95 | -88 | -48.09% | 48.09% |
I.e. we end up with less instructions, less peeling, more LICM activity,
also note how none of those 4 regressions are here. Namely:
| statistic name | LICM-LoopRotate | LICM-LoopRotate-LICM | Δ | % | abs(%) |
| asm-printer.EmittedInsts | 9015799 | 9014474 | -1325 | -0.01% | 0.01% |
| indvars.NumElimCmp | 3544 | 3546 | 2 | 0.06% | 0.06% |
| indvars.NumElimExt | 36580 | 36681 | 101 | 0.28% | 0.28% |
| indvars.NumElimIV | 1187 | 1185 | -2 | -0.17% | 0.17% |
| indvars.NumElimIdentity | 136 | 146 | 10 | 7.35% | 7.35% |
| indvars.NumLFTR | 29890 | 29899 | 9 | 0.03% | 0.03% |
| indvars.NumReplaced | 2227 | 2299 | 72 | 3.23% | 3.23% |
| indvars.NumWidened | 26329 | 26404 | 75 | 0.28% | 0.28% |
| instcount.TotalBlocks | 1173840 | 1173652 | -188 | -0.02% | 0.02% |
| instcount.TotalInsts | 9896139 | 9895452 | -687 | -0.01% | 0.01% |
| lcssa.NumLCSSA | 423961 | 425373 | 1412 | 0.33% | 0.33% |
| licm.NumHoisted | 378753 | 383352 | 4599 | 1.21% | 1.21% |
| licm.NumMovedCalls | 2208 | 2204 | -4 | -0.18% | 0.18% |
| licm.NumMovedLoads | 31821 | 35755 | 3934 | 12.36% | 12.36% |
| licm.NumPromoted | 11154 | 11163 | 9 | 0.08% | 0.08% |
| licm.NumSunk | 13587 | 14321 | 734 | 5.40% | 5.40% |
| loop-delete.NumDeleted | 8402 | 8538 | 136 | 1.62% | 1.62% |
| loop-instsimplify.NumSimplified | 11890 | 12041 | 151 | 1.27% | 1.27% |
| loop-peel.NumPeeled | 925 | 924 | -1 | -0.11% | 0.11% |
| loop-rotate.NumRotated | 42003 | 42005 | 2 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| loop-simplifycfg.NumLoopBlocksDeleted | 242 | 241 | -1 | -0.41% | 0.41% |
| loop-simplifycfg.NumLoopExitsDeleted | 20 | 497 | 477 | 2385.00% | 2385.00% |
| loop-simplifycfg.NumTerminatorsFolded | 336 | 619 | 283 | 84.23% | 84.23% |
| loop-unroll.NumCompletelyUnrolled | 11032 | 11029 | -3 | -0.03% | 0.03% |
| loop-unroll.NumUnrolled | 12529 | 12525 | -4 | -0.03% | 0.03% |
| mem2reg.NumDeadAlloca | 10221 | 10222 | 1 | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| mem2reg.NumPHIInsert | 192106 | 192073 | -33 | -0.02% | 0.02% |
| mem2reg.NumSingleStore | 637643 | 637652 | 9 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| scalar-evolution.NumBruteForceTripCountsComputed | 812 | 814 | 2 | 0.25% | 0.25% |
| scalar-evolution.NumTripCountsComputed | 282934 | 282998 | 64 | 0.02% | 0.02% |
| scalar-evolution.NumTripCountsNotComputed | 106718 | 106691 | -27 | -0.03% | 0.03% |
| simple-loop-unswitch.NumBranches | 4752 | 5185 | 433 | 9.11% | 9.11% |
| simple-loop-unswitch.NumCostMultiplierSkipped | 503 | 925 | 422 | 83.90% | 83.90% |
| simple-loop-unswitch.NumSwitches | 18 | 20 | 2 | 11.11% | 11.11% |
| simple-loop-unswitch.NumTrivial | 95 | 179 | 84 | 88.42% | 88.42% |
{F15983613} {F15983615} {F15983616}
(this is vanilla llvm testsuite + rawspeed + darktable)
As an example of the code where early LICM only is bad, see:
https://godbolt.org/z/GzEbacs4K
This does have an observable compile-time regression of +~0.5% geomean
https://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=7c5222e4d1a3a14f029e5f614c9aefd0fa505f1e&to=5d81826c3411982ca26e46b9d0aff34c80577664&stat=instructions
but i think that's basically nothing, and there's potential that it might
be avoidable in the future by fixing clang to produce alignment information
on function arguments, thus making the second run unneeded.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99249
2021-04-02 15:40:12 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: RequireAnalysisPass<{{.*}}ProfileSummaryAnalysis
|
2020-01-14 03:09:13 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: InnerAnalysisManagerProxy
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: LazyCallGraphAnalysis
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: TargetLibraryAnalysis on foo
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: FunctionAnalysisManagerCGSCCProxy
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: OuterAnalysisManagerProxy<{{.*}}LazyCallGraph::SCC{{.*}}>
|
2020-07-29 08:08:24 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: DevirtSCCRepeatedPass
|
2020-11-17 06:01:53 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: InlinerPass
|
2020-01-14 03:09:13 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: InlinerPass
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: PostOrderFunctionAttrsPass
|
2021-01-21 08:53:03 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: AAManager
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: BasicAA
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: AssumptionAnalysis
|
2021-10-15 11:41:16 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: TargetIRAnalysis
|
2021-01-21 08:53:03 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: DominatorTreeAnalysis
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: ScopedNoAliasAA
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: TypeBasedAA
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: OuterAnalysisManagerProxy
|
2020-01-14 03:09:13 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O3-NEXT: Running pass: ArgumentPromotionPass
|
2021-03-24 22:11:32 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O2-NEXT: Running pass: OpenMPOptCGSCCPass
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O3-NEXT: Running pass: OpenMPOptCGSCCPass
|
2021-11-01 23:56:48 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: SROAPass
|
2020-01-14 03:09:13 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: EarlyCSEPass
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: MemorySSAAnalysis
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O23SZ-NEXT: Running pass: SpeculativeExecutionPass
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O23SZ-NEXT: Running pass: JumpThreadingPass
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O23SZ-NEXT: Running analysis: LazyValueAnalysis
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O23SZ-NEXT: Running pass: CorrelatedValuePropagationPass
|
2020-07-31 01:14:02 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O23SZ-NEXT: Invalidating analysis: LazyValueAnalysis
|
2020-01-14 03:09:13 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: SimplifyCFGPass
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: InstCombinePass
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: BlockFrequencyAnalysis on foo
|
|
|
|
; These next two can appear in any order since they are accessed as parameters
|
|
|
|
; on the same call to BlockFrequencyInfo::calculate.
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-DAG: Running analysis: LoopAnalysis on foo
|
2020-04-28 17:31:20 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-DAG: Running analysis: BranchProbabilityAnalysis on foo
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-DAG: Running analysis: PostDominatorTreeAnalysis on foo
|
2021-11-01 21:48:52 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O3-NEXT: Running pass: AggressiveInstCombinePass
|
2020-01-14 03:09:13 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O1-NEXT: Running pass: LibCallsShrinkWrapPass
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O2-NEXT: Running pass: LibCallsShrinkWrapPass
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O3-NEXT: Running pass: LibCallsShrinkWrapPass
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O2-NEXT: Running pass: PGOMemOPSizeOpt
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O3-NEXT: Running pass: PGOMemOPSizeOpt
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O23SZ-NEXT: Running pass: TailCallElimPass
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: SimplifyCFGPass
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: ReassociatePass
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: RequireAnalysisPass<{{.*}}OptimizationRemarkEmitterAnalysis
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: LoopSimplifyPass
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: LCSSAPass
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: ScalarEvolutionAnalysis
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: InnerAnalysisManagerProxy
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: LoopInstSimplifyPass
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: LoopSimplifyCFGPass
|
[PassManager] Run additional LICM before LoopRotate
Loop rotation often has to perform code duplication
from header into preheader, which introduces PHI nodes.
>>! In D99204, @thopre wrote:
>
> With loop peeling, it is important that unnecessary PHIs be avoided or
> it will leads to spurious peeling. One source of such PHIs is loop
> rotation which creates PHIs for invariant loads. Those PHIs are
> particularly problematic since loop peeling is now run as part of simple
> loop unrolling before GVN is run, and are thus a source of spurious
> peeling.
>
> Note that while some of the load can be hoisted and eventually
> eliminated by instruction combine, this is not always possible due to
> alignment issue. In particular, the motivating example [1] was a load
> inside a class instance which cannot be hoisted because the `this'
> pointer has an alignment of 1.
>
> [1] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20210312/4ce73c47/attachment.cpp
Now, we could enhance LoopRotate to avoid duplicating code when not needed,
but instead hoist loop-invariant code, but isn't that a code duplication? (*sic*)
We have LICM, and in fact we already run it right after LoopRotation.
We could try to move it to before LoopRotation,
that is basically free from compile-time perspective:
https://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=6c93eb4477d88af046b915bc955c03693b2cbb58&to=a4bee6d07732b1184c436da489040b912f0dc271&stat=instructions
But, looking at stats, i think it isn't great that we would no longer do LICM after LoopRotation, in particular:
| statistic name | LoopRotate-LICM | LICM-LoopRotate | Δ | % | abs(%) |
| asm-printer.EmittedInsts | 9015930 | 9015799 | -131 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| indvars.NumElimCmp | 3536 | 3544 | 8 | 0.23% | 0.23% |
| indvars.NumElimExt | 36725 | 36580 | -145 | -0.39% | 0.39% |
| indvars.NumElimIV | 1197 | 1187 | -10 | -0.84% | 0.84% |
| indvars.NumElimIdentity | 143 | 136 | -7 | -4.90% | 4.90% |
| indvars.NumElimRem | 4 | 5 | 1 | 25.00% | 25.00% |
| indvars.NumLFTR | 29842 | 29890 | 48 | 0.16% | 0.16% |
| indvars.NumReplaced | 2293 | 2227 | -66 | -2.88% | 2.88% |
| indvars.NumSimplifiedSDiv | 6 | 8 | 2 | 33.33% | 33.33% |
| indvars.NumWidened | 26438 | 26329 | -109 | -0.41% | 0.41% |
| instcount.TotalBlocks | 1178338 | 1173840 | -4498 | -0.38% | 0.38% |
| instcount.TotalFuncs | 111825 | 111829 | 4 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| instcount.TotalInsts | 9905442 | 9896139 | -9303 | -0.09% | 0.09% |
| lcssa.NumLCSSA | 425871 | 423961 | -1910 | -0.45% | 0.45% |
| licm.NumHoisted | 378357 | 378753 | 396 | 0.10% | 0.10% |
| licm.NumMovedCalls | 2193 | 2208 | 15 | 0.68% | 0.68% |
| licm.NumMovedLoads | 35899 | 31821 | -4078 | -11.36% | 11.36% |
| licm.NumPromoted | 11178 | 11154 | -24 | -0.21% | 0.21% |
| licm.NumSunk | 13359 | 13587 | 228 | 1.71% | 1.71% |
| loop-delete.NumDeleted | 8547 | 8402 | -145 | -1.70% | 1.70% |
| loop-instsimplify.NumSimplified | 12876 | 11890 | -986 | -7.66% | 7.66% |
| loop-peel.NumPeeled | 1008 | 925 | -83 | -8.23% | 8.23% |
| loop-rotate.NumNotRotatedDueToHeaderSize | 368 | 365 | -3 | -0.82% | 0.82% |
| loop-rotate.NumRotated | 42015 | 42003 | -12 | -0.03% | 0.03% |
| loop-simplifycfg.NumLoopBlocksDeleted | 240 | 242 | 2 | 0.83% | 0.83% |
| loop-simplifycfg.NumLoopExitsDeleted | 497 | 20 | -477 | -95.98% | 95.98% |
| loop-simplifycfg.NumTerminatorsFolded | 618 | 336 | -282 | -45.63% | 45.63% |
| loop-unroll.NumCompletelyUnrolled | 11028 | 11032 | 4 | 0.04% | 0.04% |
| loop-unroll.NumUnrolled | 12608 | 12529 | -79 | -0.63% | 0.63% |
| mem2reg.NumDeadAlloca | 10222 | 10221 | -1 | -0.01% | 0.01% |
| mem2reg.NumPHIInsert | 192110 | 192106 | -4 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| mem2reg.NumSingleStore | 637650 | 637643 | -7 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| scalar-evolution.NumBruteForceTripCountsComputed | 814 | 812 | -2 | -0.25% | 0.25% |
| scalar-evolution.NumTripCountsComputed | 283108 | 282934 | -174 | -0.06% | 0.06% |
| scalar-evolution.NumTripCountsNotComputed | 106712 | 106718 | 6 | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| simple-loop-unswitch.NumBranches | 5178 | 4752 | -426 | -8.23% | 8.23% |
| simple-loop-unswitch.NumCostMultiplierSkipped | 914 | 503 | -411 | -44.97% | 44.97% |
| simple-loop-unswitch.NumSwitches | 20 | 18 | -2 | -10.00% | 10.00% |
| simple-loop-unswitch.NumTrivial | 183 | 95 | -88 | -48.09% | 48.09% |
... but that actually regresses LICM (-12% `licm.NumMovedLoads`),
loop-simplifycfg (`NumLoopExitsDeleted`, `NumTerminatorsFolded`),
simple-loop-unswitch (`NumTrivial`).
What if we instead have LICM both before and after LoopRotate?
| statistic name | LoopRotate-LICM | LICM-LoopRotate-LICM | Δ | % | abs(%) |
| asm-printer.EmittedInsts | 9015930 | 9014474 | -1456 | -0.02% | 0.02% |
| indvars.NumElimCmp | 3536 | 3546 | 10 | 0.28% | 0.28% |
| indvars.NumElimExt | 36725 | 36681 | -44 | -0.12% | 0.12% |
| indvars.NumElimIV | 1197 | 1185 | -12 | -1.00% | 1.00% |
| indvars.NumElimIdentity | 143 | 146 | 3 | 2.10% | 2.10% |
| indvars.NumElimRem | 4 | 5 | 1 | 25.00% | 25.00% |
| indvars.NumLFTR | 29842 | 29899 | 57 | 0.19% | 0.19% |
| indvars.NumReplaced | 2293 | 2299 | 6 | 0.26% | 0.26% |
| indvars.NumSimplifiedSDiv | 6 | 8 | 2 | 33.33% | 33.33% |
| indvars.NumWidened | 26438 | 26404 | -34 | -0.13% | 0.13% |
| instcount.TotalBlocks | 1178338 | 1173652 | -4686 | -0.40% | 0.40% |
| instcount.TotalFuncs | 111825 | 111829 | 4 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| instcount.TotalInsts | 9905442 | 9895452 | -9990 | -0.10% | 0.10% |
| lcssa.NumLCSSA | 425871 | 425373 | -498 | -0.12% | 0.12% |
| licm.NumHoisted | 378357 | 383352 | 4995 | 1.32% | 1.32% |
| licm.NumMovedCalls | 2193 | 2204 | 11 | 0.50% | 0.50% |
| licm.NumMovedLoads | 35899 | 35755 | -144 | -0.40% | 0.40% |
| licm.NumPromoted | 11178 | 11163 | -15 | -0.13% | 0.13% |
| licm.NumSunk | 13359 | 14321 | 962 | 7.20% | 7.20% |
| loop-delete.NumDeleted | 8547 | 8538 | -9 | -0.11% | 0.11% |
| loop-instsimplify.NumSimplified | 12876 | 12041 | -835 | -6.48% | 6.48% |
| loop-peel.NumPeeled | 1008 | 924 | -84 | -8.33% | 8.33% |
| loop-rotate.NumNotRotatedDueToHeaderSize | 368 | 365 | -3 | -0.82% | 0.82% |
| loop-rotate.NumRotated | 42015 | 42005 | -10 | -0.02% | 0.02% |
| loop-simplifycfg.NumLoopBlocksDeleted | 240 | 241 | 1 | 0.42% | 0.42% |
| loop-simplifycfg.NumTerminatorsFolded | 618 | 619 | 1 | 0.16% | 0.16% |
| loop-unroll.NumCompletelyUnrolled | 11028 | 11029 | 1 | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| loop-unroll.NumUnrolled | 12608 | 12525 | -83 | -0.66% | 0.66% |
| mem2reg.NumPHIInsert | 192110 | 192073 | -37 | -0.02% | 0.02% |
| mem2reg.NumSingleStore | 637650 | 637652 | 2 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| scalar-evolution.NumTripCountsComputed | 283108 | 282998 | -110 | -0.04% | 0.04% |
| scalar-evolution.NumTripCountsNotComputed | 106712 | 106691 | -21 | -0.02% | 0.02% |
| simple-loop-unswitch.NumBranches | 5178 | 5185 | 7 | 0.14% | 0.14% |
| simple-loop-unswitch.NumCostMultiplierSkipped | 914 | 925 | 11 | 1.20% | 1.20% |
| simple-loop-unswitch.NumTrivial | 183 | 179 | -4 | -2.19% | 2.19% |
| simple-loop-unswitch.NumBranches | 5178 | 4752 | -426 | -8.23% | 8.23% |
| simple-loop-unswitch.NumCostMultiplierSkipped | 914 | 503 | -411 | -44.97% | 44.97% |
| simple-loop-unswitch.NumSwitches | 20 | 18 | -2 | -10.00% | 10.00% |
| simple-loop-unswitch.NumTrivial | 183 | 95 | -88 | -48.09% | 48.09% |
I.e. we end up with less instructions, less peeling, more LICM activity,
also note how none of those 4 regressions are here. Namely:
| statistic name | LICM-LoopRotate | LICM-LoopRotate-LICM | Δ | % | abs(%) |
| asm-printer.EmittedInsts | 9015799 | 9014474 | -1325 | -0.01% | 0.01% |
| indvars.NumElimCmp | 3544 | 3546 | 2 | 0.06% | 0.06% |
| indvars.NumElimExt | 36580 | 36681 | 101 | 0.28% | 0.28% |
| indvars.NumElimIV | 1187 | 1185 | -2 | -0.17% | 0.17% |
| indvars.NumElimIdentity | 136 | 146 | 10 | 7.35% | 7.35% |
| indvars.NumLFTR | 29890 | 29899 | 9 | 0.03% | 0.03% |
| indvars.NumReplaced | 2227 | 2299 | 72 | 3.23% | 3.23% |
| indvars.NumWidened | 26329 | 26404 | 75 | 0.28% | 0.28% |
| instcount.TotalBlocks | 1173840 | 1173652 | -188 | -0.02% | 0.02% |
| instcount.TotalInsts | 9896139 | 9895452 | -687 | -0.01% | 0.01% |
| lcssa.NumLCSSA | 423961 | 425373 | 1412 | 0.33% | 0.33% |
| licm.NumHoisted | 378753 | 383352 | 4599 | 1.21% | 1.21% |
| licm.NumMovedCalls | 2208 | 2204 | -4 | -0.18% | 0.18% |
| licm.NumMovedLoads | 31821 | 35755 | 3934 | 12.36% | 12.36% |
| licm.NumPromoted | 11154 | 11163 | 9 | 0.08% | 0.08% |
| licm.NumSunk | 13587 | 14321 | 734 | 5.40% | 5.40% |
| loop-delete.NumDeleted | 8402 | 8538 | 136 | 1.62% | 1.62% |
| loop-instsimplify.NumSimplified | 11890 | 12041 | 151 | 1.27% | 1.27% |
| loop-peel.NumPeeled | 925 | 924 | -1 | -0.11% | 0.11% |
| loop-rotate.NumRotated | 42003 | 42005 | 2 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| loop-simplifycfg.NumLoopBlocksDeleted | 242 | 241 | -1 | -0.41% | 0.41% |
| loop-simplifycfg.NumLoopExitsDeleted | 20 | 497 | 477 | 2385.00% | 2385.00% |
| loop-simplifycfg.NumTerminatorsFolded | 336 | 619 | 283 | 84.23% | 84.23% |
| loop-unroll.NumCompletelyUnrolled | 11032 | 11029 | -3 | -0.03% | 0.03% |
| loop-unroll.NumUnrolled | 12529 | 12525 | -4 | -0.03% | 0.03% |
| mem2reg.NumDeadAlloca | 10221 | 10222 | 1 | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| mem2reg.NumPHIInsert | 192106 | 192073 | -33 | -0.02% | 0.02% |
| mem2reg.NumSingleStore | 637643 | 637652 | 9 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| scalar-evolution.NumBruteForceTripCountsComputed | 812 | 814 | 2 | 0.25% | 0.25% |
| scalar-evolution.NumTripCountsComputed | 282934 | 282998 | 64 | 0.02% | 0.02% |
| scalar-evolution.NumTripCountsNotComputed | 106718 | 106691 | -27 | -0.03% | 0.03% |
| simple-loop-unswitch.NumBranches | 4752 | 5185 | 433 | 9.11% | 9.11% |
| simple-loop-unswitch.NumCostMultiplierSkipped | 503 | 925 | 422 | 83.90% | 83.90% |
| simple-loop-unswitch.NumSwitches | 18 | 20 | 2 | 11.11% | 11.11% |
| simple-loop-unswitch.NumTrivial | 95 | 179 | 84 | 88.42% | 88.42% |
{F15983613} {F15983615} {F15983616}
(this is vanilla llvm testsuite + rawspeed + darktable)
As an example of the code where early LICM only is bad, see:
https://godbolt.org/z/GzEbacs4K
This does have an observable compile-time regression of +~0.5% geomean
https://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=7c5222e4d1a3a14f029e5f614c9aefd0fa505f1e&to=5d81826c3411982ca26e46b9d0aff34c80577664&stat=instructions
but i think that's basically nothing, and there's potential that it might
be avoidable in the future by fixing clang to produce alignment information
on function arguments, thus making the second run unneeded.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99249
2021-04-02 15:40:12 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: LICM
|
2020-01-14 03:09:13 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: LoopRotatePass
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: LICM
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: SimpleLoopUnswitchPass
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: SimplifyCFGPass
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: InstCombinePass
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: LoopSimplifyPass
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: LCSSAPass
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: LoopIdiomRecognizePass
|
[PassManager] Run Induction Variable Simplification pass *after* Recognize loop idioms pass, not before
Currently, `-indvars` runs first, and then immediately after `-loop-idiom` does.
I'm not really sure if `-loop-idiom` requires `-indvars` to run beforehand,
but i'm *very* sure that `-indvars` requires `-loop-idiom` to run afterwards,
as it can be seen in the phase-ordering test.
LoopIdiom runs on two types of loops: countable ones, and uncountable ones.
For uncountable ones, IndVars obviously didn't make any change to them,
since they are uncountable, so for them the order should be irrelevant.
For countable ones, well, they should have been countable before IndVars
for IndVars to make any change to them, and since SCEV is used on them,
it shouldn't matter if IndVars have already canonicalized them.
So i don't really see why we'd want the current ordering.
Should this cause issues, it will give us a reproducer test case
that shows flaws in this logic, and we then could adjust accordingly.
While this is quite likely beneficial in-the-wild already,
it's a required part for the full motivational pattern
behind `left-shift-until-bittest` loop idiom (D91038).
Reviewed By: dmgreen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91800
2020-11-26 00:17:25 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: IndVarSimplifyPass
|
2020-01-14 03:09:13 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: LoopDeletionPass
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: LoopFullUnrollPass
|
2021-11-01 23:56:48 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: SROAPass on foo
|
2020-01-14 03:09:13 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-Os-NEXT: Running pass: MergedLoadStoreMotionPass
|
2021-11-01 23:56:48 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-Os-NEXT: Running pass: GVNPass
|
2020-01-14 03:09:13 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-Os-NEXT: Running analysis: MemoryDependenceAnalysis
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-Os-NEXT: Running analysis: PhiValuesAnalysis
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-Oz-NEXT: Running pass: MergedLoadStoreMotionPass
|
2021-11-01 23:56:48 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-Oz-NEXT: Running pass: GVNPass
|
2020-01-14 03:09:13 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-Oz-NEXT: Running analysis: MemoryDependenceAnalysis
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-Oz-NEXT: Running analysis: PhiValuesAnalysis
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O2-NEXT: Running pass: MergedLoadStoreMotionPass
|
2021-11-01 23:56:48 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O2-NEXT: Running pass: GVNPass
|
2020-01-14 03:09:13 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O2-NEXT: Running analysis: MemoryDependenceAnalysis
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O2-NEXT: Running analysis: PhiValuesAnalysis
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O3-NEXT: Running pass: MergedLoadStoreMotionPass
|
2021-11-01 23:56:48 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O3-NEXT: Running pass: GVNPass
|
2020-01-14 03:09:13 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O3-NEXT: Running analysis: MemoryDependenceAnalysis
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O3-NEXT: Running analysis: PhiValuesAnalysis
|
2021-01-10 17:52:01 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O1-NEXT: Running pass: MemCpyOptPass
|
2020-01-14 03:09:13 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: SCCPPass
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: BDCEPass
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: DemandedBitsAnalysis
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: InstCombinePass
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O23SZ-NEXT: Running pass: JumpThreadingPass
|
2020-07-31 01:14:02 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O23SZ-NEXT: Running analysis: LazyValueAnalysis
|
2020-01-14 03:09:13 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O23SZ-NEXT: Running pass: CorrelatedValuePropagationPass
|
2020-07-31 01:14:02 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O23SZ-NEXT: Invalidating analysis: LazyValueAnalysis
|
2021-07-15 14:31:31 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O1-NEXT: Running pass: CoroElidePass
|
2020-10-21 17:21:50 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: ADCEPass
|
2021-01-10 17:52:01 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O23SZ-NEXT: Running pass: MemCpyOptPass
|
2020-01-14 03:09:13 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O23SZ-NEXT: Running pass: DSEPass
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O23SZ-NEXT: Running pass: LoopSimplifyPass
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O23SZ-NEXT: Running pass: LCSSAPass
|
2020-07-29 08:08:24 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O23SZ-NEXT: Running pass: LICMPass
|
2021-07-15 14:31:31 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O23SZ-NEXT: Running pass: CoroElidePass
|
2020-01-14 03:09:13 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: SimplifyCFGPass
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: InstCombinePass
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O3-NEXT: Running pass: ControlHeightReductionPass on foo
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O3-NEXT: Running analysis: RegionInfoAnalysis on foo
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O3-NEXT: Running analysis: DominanceFrontierAnalysis on foo
|
2021-07-15 14:31:31 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: CoroSplitPass
|
2021-10-12 07:43:28 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Invalidating analysis: InlineAdvisorAnalysis
|
2020-01-14 03:09:13 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: GlobalOptPass
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running analysis: TargetLibraryAnalysis on bar
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-EXT: Running pass: {{.*}}::Bye
|
2021-07-15 14:31:31 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: CoroCleanupPass
|
2020-11-13 17:46:55 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: AnnotationRemarksPass on foo
|
2020-11-17 04:48:42 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: CanonicalizeAliasesPass
|
2020-01-14 03:09:13 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: NameAnonGlobalPass
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: Running pass: PrintModulePass
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
; Make sure we get the IR back out without changes when we print the module.
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-LABEL: define void @foo(i32 %n) local_unnamed_addr {
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: entry:
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: br label %loop
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O: loop:
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: %iv = phi i32 [ 0, %entry ], [ %iv.next, %loop ]
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: %iv.next = add i32 %iv, 1
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: tail call void @bar()
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: %cmp = icmp eq i32 %iv, %n
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: br i1 %cmp, label %exit, label %loop
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O: exit:
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: ret void
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-O-NEXT: }
|
|
|
|
;
|
|
|
|
; Ignore a bunch of intervening metadata containing profile data.
|
|
|
|
;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
declare void @bar() local_unnamed_addr
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
define void @foo(i32 %n) local_unnamed_addr {
|
|
|
|
entry:
|
|
|
|
br label %loop
|
|
|
|
loop:
|
|
|
|
%iv = phi i32 [ 0, %entry ], [ %iv.next, %loop ]
|
|
|
|
%iv.next = add i32 %iv, 1
|
|
|
|
tail call void @bar()
|
|
|
|
%cmp = icmp eq i32 %iv, %n
|
|
|
|
br i1 %cmp, label %exit, label %loop
|
|
|
|
exit:
|
|
|
|
ret void
|
|
|
|
}
|