2017-10-14 05:17:07 +08:00
|
|
|
//===- GVNSink.cpp - sink expressions into successors ---------------------===//
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
//
|
2019-01-19 16:50:56 +08:00
|
|
|
// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM Exceptions.
|
|
|
|
// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information.
|
|
|
|
// SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
/// \file GVNSink.cpp
|
|
|
|
/// This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
|
|
|
|
/// instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
|
|
|
|
///
|
|
|
|
/// We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
|
|
|
|
/// Consider:
|
|
|
|
///
|
|
|
|
/// [ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
|
|
|
|
/// [ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
|
|
|
|
/// \ /
|
|
|
|
/// [ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
|
|
|
|
/// [ add i32 %e, 4 ]
|
|
|
|
///
|
|
|
|
///
|
|
|
|
/// GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
|
|
|
|
/// results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
|
|
|
|
/// transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
|
|
|
|
/// and CSE.
|
|
|
|
///
|
|
|
|
/// What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
|
|
|
|
/// the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
|
|
|
|
/// replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
|
|
|
|
/// successive instructions?". The PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
|
|
|
|
/// mapping.
|
2017-10-14 05:17:07 +08:00
|
|
|
//
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
|
|
|
|
|
2017-10-14 05:17:07 +08:00
|
|
|
#include "llvm/ADT/ArrayRef.h"
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
#include "llvm/ADT/DenseMap.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/ADT/DenseMapInfo.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/ADT/DenseSet.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/ADT/Hashing.h"
|
2017-10-14 05:17:07 +08:00
|
|
|
#include "llvm/ADT/None.h"
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
#include "llvm/ADT/Optional.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/ADT/PostOrderIterator.h"
|
2017-10-14 05:17:07 +08:00
|
|
|
#include "llvm/ADT/STLExtras.h"
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
#include "llvm/ADT/SmallPtrSet.h"
|
2017-10-14 05:17:07 +08:00
|
|
|
#include "llvm/ADT/SmallVector.h"
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
#include "llvm/ADT/Statistic.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/ADT/StringExtras.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/Analysis/GlobalsModRef.h"
|
2018-06-05 05:23:21 +08:00
|
|
|
#include "llvm/Transforms/Utils/Local.h"
|
2017-10-14 05:17:07 +08:00
|
|
|
#include "llvm/IR/BasicBlock.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/IR/CFG.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/IR/Constants.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/IR/Function.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/IR/InstrTypes.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/IR/Instruction.h"
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
#include "llvm/IR/Instructions.h"
|
2017-10-14 05:17:07 +08:00
|
|
|
#include "llvm/IR/PassManager.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/IR/Type.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/IR/Use.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/IR/Value.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/Pass.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/Support/Allocator.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/Support/ArrayRecycler.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/Support/AtomicOrdering.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/Support/Casting.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/Support/Compiler.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/Support/Debug.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/Support/raw_ostream.h"
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
#include "llvm/Transforms/Scalar.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/Transforms/Scalar/GVN.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/Transforms/Scalar/GVNExpression.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/Transforms/Utils/BasicBlockUtils.h"
|
2017-10-14 05:17:07 +08:00
|
|
|
#include <algorithm>
|
|
|
|
#include <cassert>
|
|
|
|
#include <cstddef>
|
|
|
|
#include <cstdint>
|
|
|
|
#include <iterator>
|
|
|
|
#include <utility>
|
|
|
|
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
using namespace llvm;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#define DEBUG_TYPE "gvn-sink"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STATISTIC(NumRemoved, "Number of instructions removed");
|
|
|
|
|
2017-06-15 03:16:22 +08:00
|
|
|
namespace llvm {
|
|
|
|
namespace GVNExpression {
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LLVM_DUMP_METHOD void Expression::dump() const {
|
|
|
|
print(dbgs());
|
|
|
|
dbgs() << "\n";
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2017-10-14 05:17:07 +08:00
|
|
|
} // end namespace GVNExpression
|
|
|
|
} // end namespace llvm
|
2017-06-15 03:16:22 +08:00
|
|
|
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
namespace {
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
static bool isMemoryInst(const Instruction *I) {
|
|
|
|
return isa<LoadInst>(I) || isa<StoreInst>(I) ||
|
|
|
|
(isa<InvokeInst>(I) && !cast<InvokeInst>(I)->doesNotAccessMemory()) ||
|
|
|
|
(isa<CallInst>(I) && !cast<CallInst>(I)->doesNotAccessMemory());
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/// Iterates through instructions in a set of blocks in reverse order from the
|
|
|
|
/// first non-terminator. For example (assume all blocks have size n):
|
|
|
|
/// LockstepReverseIterator I([B1, B2, B3]);
|
|
|
|
/// *I-- = [B1[n], B2[n], B3[n]];
|
|
|
|
/// *I-- = [B1[n-1], B2[n-1], B3[n-1]];
|
|
|
|
/// *I-- = [B1[n-2], B2[n-2], B3[n-2]];
|
|
|
|
/// ...
|
|
|
|
///
|
|
|
|
/// It continues until all blocks have been exhausted. Use \c getActiveBlocks()
|
|
|
|
/// to
|
|
|
|
/// determine which blocks are still going and the order they appear in the
|
|
|
|
/// list returned by operator*.
|
|
|
|
class LockstepReverseIterator {
|
|
|
|
ArrayRef<BasicBlock *> Blocks;
|
2017-10-24 03:56:52 +08:00
|
|
|
SmallSetVector<BasicBlock *, 4> ActiveBlocks;
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
SmallVector<Instruction *, 4> Insts;
|
|
|
|
bool Fail;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
public:
|
|
|
|
LockstepReverseIterator(ArrayRef<BasicBlock *> Blocks) : Blocks(Blocks) {
|
|
|
|
reset();
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void reset() {
|
|
|
|
Fail = false;
|
|
|
|
ActiveBlocks.clear();
|
|
|
|
for (BasicBlock *BB : Blocks)
|
|
|
|
ActiveBlocks.insert(BB);
|
|
|
|
Insts.clear();
|
|
|
|
for (BasicBlock *BB : Blocks) {
|
|
|
|
if (BB->size() <= 1) {
|
|
|
|
// Block wasn't big enough - only contained a terminator.
|
2017-10-24 03:56:52 +08:00
|
|
|
ActiveBlocks.remove(BB);
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
continue;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
Insts.push_back(BB->getTerminator()->getPrevNode());
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (Insts.empty())
|
|
|
|
Fail = true;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bool isValid() const { return !Fail; }
|
|
|
|
ArrayRef<Instruction *> operator*() const { return Insts; }
|
|
|
|
|
2017-10-24 03:56:52 +08:00
|
|
|
// Note: This needs to return a SmallSetVector as the elements of
|
|
|
|
// ActiveBlocks will be later copied to Blocks using std::copy. The
|
|
|
|
// resultant order of elements in Blocks needs to be deterministic.
|
|
|
|
// Using SmallPtrSet instead causes non-deterministic order while
|
|
|
|
// copying. And we cannot simply sort Blocks as they need to match the
|
|
|
|
// corresponding Values.
|
|
|
|
SmallSetVector<BasicBlock *, 4> &getActiveBlocks() { return ActiveBlocks; }
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void restrictToBlocks(SmallSetVector<BasicBlock *, 4> &Blocks) {
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
for (auto II = Insts.begin(); II != Insts.end();) {
|
|
|
|
if (std::find(Blocks.begin(), Blocks.end(), (*II)->getParent()) ==
|
|
|
|
Blocks.end()) {
|
2017-10-24 03:56:52 +08:00
|
|
|
ActiveBlocks.remove((*II)->getParent());
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
II = Insts.erase(II);
|
|
|
|
} else {
|
|
|
|
++II;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void operator--() {
|
|
|
|
if (Fail)
|
|
|
|
return;
|
|
|
|
SmallVector<Instruction *, 4> NewInsts;
|
|
|
|
for (auto *Inst : Insts) {
|
|
|
|
if (Inst == &Inst->getParent()->front())
|
2017-10-24 03:56:52 +08:00
|
|
|
ActiveBlocks.remove(Inst->getParent());
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
NewInsts.push_back(Inst->getPrevNode());
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (NewInsts.empty()) {
|
|
|
|
Fail = true;
|
|
|
|
return;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
Insts = NewInsts;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/// Candidate solution for sinking. There may be different ways to
|
|
|
|
/// sink instructions, differing in the number of instructions sunk,
|
|
|
|
/// the number of predecessors sunk from and the number of PHIs
|
|
|
|
/// required.
|
|
|
|
struct SinkingInstructionCandidate {
|
|
|
|
unsigned NumBlocks;
|
|
|
|
unsigned NumInstructions;
|
|
|
|
unsigned NumPHIs;
|
|
|
|
unsigned NumMemoryInsts;
|
|
|
|
int Cost = -1;
|
|
|
|
SmallVector<BasicBlock *, 4> Blocks;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void calculateCost(unsigned NumOrigPHIs, unsigned NumOrigBlocks) {
|
|
|
|
unsigned NumExtraPHIs = NumPHIs - NumOrigPHIs;
|
|
|
|
unsigned SplitEdgeCost = (NumOrigBlocks > NumBlocks) ? 2 : 0;
|
|
|
|
Cost = (NumInstructions * (NumBlocks - 1)) -
|
|
|
|
(NumExtraPHIs *
|
|
|
|
NumExtraPHIs) // PHIs are expensive, so make sure they're worth it.
|
|
|
|
- SplitEdgeCost;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2017-10-14 05:17:07 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2017-06-09 01:27:40 +08:00
|
|
|
bool operator>(const SinkingInstructionCandidate &Other) const {
|
|
|
|
return Cost > Other.Cost;
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
2017-05-25 21:11:18 +08:00
|
|
|
#ifndef NDEBUG
|
2017-10-14 05:17:07 +08:00
|
|
|
raw_ostream &operator<<(raw_ostream &OS, const SinkingInstructionCandidate &C) {
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
OS << "<Candidate Cost=" << C.Cost << " #Blocks=" << C.NumBlocks
|
|
|
|
<< " #Insts=" << C.NumInstructions << " #PHIs=" << C.NumPHIs << ">";
|
|
|
|
return OS;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2017-05-25 21:11:18 +08:00
|
|
|
#endif
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/// Describes a PHI node that may or may not exist. These track the PHIs
|
|
|
|
/// that must be created if we sunk a sequence of instructions. It provides
|
|
|
|
/// a hash function for efficient equality comparisons.
|
|
|
|
class ModelledPHI {
|
|
|
|
SmallVector<Value *, 4> Values;
|
|
|
|
SmallVector<BasicBlock *, 4> Blocks;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
public:
|
2017-10-14 05:17:07 +08:00
|
|
|
ModelledPHI() = default;
|
|
|
|
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
ModelledPHI(const PHINode *PN) {
|
2017-09-20 08:07:27 +08:00
|
|
|
// BasicBlock comes first so we sort by basic block pointer order, then by value pointer order.
|
|
|
|
SmallVector<std::pair<BasicBlock *, Value *>, 4> Ops;
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
for (unsigned I = 0, E = PN->getNumIncomingValues(); I != E; ++I)
|
2017-09-20 08:07:27 +08:00
|
|
|
Ops.push_back({PN->getIncomingBlock(I), PN->getIncomingValue(I)});
|
llvm::sort(C.begin(), C.end(), ...) -> llvm::sort(C, ...)
Summary: The convenience wrapper in STLExtras is available since rL342102.
Reviewers: dblaikie, javed.absar, JDevlieghere, andreadb
Subscribers: MatzeB, sanjoy, arsenm, dschuff, mehdi_amini, sdardis, nemanjai, jvesely, nhaehnle, sbc100, jgravelle-google, eraman, aheejin, kbarton, JDevlieghere, javed.absar, gbedwell, jrtc27, mgrang, atanasyan, steven_wu, george.burgess.iv, dexonsmith, kristina, jsji, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52573
llvm-svn: 343163
2018-09-27 10:13:45 +08:00
|
|
|
llvm::sort(Ops);
|
2017-09-20 08:07:27 +08:00
|
|
|
for (auto &P : Ops) {
|
|
|
|
Blocks.push_back(P.first);
|
|
|
|
Values.push_back(P.second);
|
|
|
|
}
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
2017-10-14 05:17:07 +08:00
|
|
|
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
/// Create a dummy ModelledPHI that will compare unequal to any other ModelledPHI
|
|
|
|
/// without the same ID.
|
|
|
|
/// \note This is specifically for DenseMapInfo - do not use this!
|
2017-05-25 21:14:10 +08:00
|
|
|
static ModelledPHI createDummy(size_t ID) {
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
ModelledPHI M;
|
|
|
|
M.Values.push_back(reinterpret_cast<Value*>(ID));
|
|
|
|
return M;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/// Create a PHI from an array of incoming values and incoming blocks.
|
|
|
|
template <typename VArray, typename BArray>
|
|
|
|
ModelledPHI(const VArray &V, const BArray &B) {
|
2018-11-17 09:44:25 +08:00
|
|
|
llvm::copy(V, std::back_inserter(Values));
|
|
|
|
llvm::copy(B, std::back_inserter(Blocks));
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/// Create a PHI from [I[OpNum] for I in Insts].
|
|
|
|
template <typename BArray>
|
|
|
|
ModelledPHI(ArrayRef<Instruction *> Insts, unsigned OpNum, const BArray &B) {
|
2018-11-17 09:44:25 +08:00
|
|
|
llvm::copy(B, std::back_inserter(Blocks));
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
for (auto *I : Insts)
|
|
|
|
Values.push_back(I->getOperand(OpNum));
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/// Restrict the PHI's contents down to only \c NewBlocks.
|
|
|
|
/// \c NewBlocks must be a subset of \c this->Blocks.
|
2017-10-24 03:56:52 +08:00
|
|
|
void restrictToBlocks(const SmallSetVector<BasicBlock *, 4> &NewBlocks) {
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
auto BI = Blocks.begin();
|
|
|
|
auto VI = Values.begin();
|
|
|
|
while (BI != Blocks.end()) {
|
|
|
|
assert(VI != Values.end());
|
|
|
|
if (std::find(NewBlocks.begin(), NewBlocks.end(), *BI) ==
|
|
|
|
NewBlocks.end()) {
|
|
|
|
BI = Blocks.erase(BI);
|
|
|
|
VI = Values.erase(VI);
|
|
|
|
} else {
|
|
|
|
++BI;
|
|
|
|
++VI;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
assert(Blocks.size() == NewBlocks.size());
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ArrayRef<Value *> getValues() const { return Values; }
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bool areAllIncomingValuesSame() const {
|
2017-10-14 05:17:07 +08:00
|
|
|
return llvm::all_of(Values, [&](Value *V) { return V == Values[0]; });
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
2017-10-14 05:17:07 +08:00
|
|
|
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
bool areAllIncomingValuesSameType() const {
|
2017-10-14 05:17:07 +08:00
|
|
|
return llvm::all_of(
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
Values, [&](Value *V) { return V->getType() == Values[0]->getType(); });
|
|
|
|
}
|
2017-10-14 05:17:07 +08:00
|
|
|
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
bool areAnyIncomingValuesConstant() const {
|
2017-10-14 05:17:07 +08:00
|
|
|
return llvm::any_of(Values, [&](Value *V) { return isa<Constant>(V); });
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
2017-10-14 05:17:07 +08:00
|
|
|
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
// Hash functor
|
|
|
|
unsigned hash() const {
|
|
|
|
return (unsigned)hash_combine_range(Values.begin(), Values.end());
|
|
|
|
}
|
2017-10-14 05:17:07 +08:00
|
|
|
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
bool operator==(const ModelledPHI &Other) const {
|
|
|
|
return Values == Other.Values && Blocks == Other.Blocks;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
template <typename ModelledPHI> struct DenseMapInfo {
|
|
|
|
static inline ModelledPHI &getEmptyKey() {
|
|
|
|
static ModelledPHI Dummy = ModelledPHI::createDummy(0);
|
|
|
|
return Dummy;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2017-10-14 05:17:07 +08:00
|
|
|
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
static inline ModelledPHI &getTombstoneKey() {
|
|
|
|
static ModelledPHI Dummy = ModelledPHI::createDummy(1);
|
|
|
|
return Dummy;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2017-10-14 05:17:07 +08:00
|
|
|
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
static unsigned getHashValue(const ModelledPHI &V) { return V.hash(); }
|
2017-10-14 05:17:07 +08:00
|
|
|
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
static bool isEqual(const ModelledPHI &LHS, const ModelledPHI &RHS) {
|
|
|
|
return LHS == RHS;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
2017-10-14 05:17:07 +08:00
|
|
|
using ModelledPHISet = DenseSet<ModelledPHI, DenseMapInfo<ModelledPHI>>;
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
|
|
|
|
// ValueTable
|
|
|
|
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
|
|
|
|
// This is a value number table where the value number is a function of the
|
|
|
|
// *uses* of a value, rather than its operands. Thus, if VN(A) == VN(B) we know
|
|
|
|
// that the program would be equivalent if we replaced A with PHI(A, B).
|
|
|
|
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/// A GVN expression describing how an instruction is used. The operands
|
|
|
|
/// field of BasicExpression is used to store uses, not operands.
|
|
|
|
///
|
|
|
|
/// This class also contains fields for discriminators used when determining
|
|
|
|
/// equivalence of instructions with sideeffects.
|
|
|
|
class InstructionUseExpr : public GVNExpression::BasicExpression {
|
|
|
|
unsigned MemoryUseOrder = -1;
|
|
|
|
bool Volatile = false;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
public:
|
|
|
|
InstructionUseExpr(Instruction *I, ArrayRecycler<Value *> &R,
|
|
|
|
BumpPtrAllocator &A)
|
|
|
|
: GVNExpression::BasicExpression(I->getNumUses()) {
|
|
|
|
allocateOperands(R, A);
|
|
|
|
setOpcode(I->getOpcode());
|
|
|
|
setType(I->getType());
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
for (auto &U : I->uses())
|
|
|
|
op_push_back(U.getUser());
|
2018-04-14 03:47:57 +08:00
|
|
|
llvm::sort(op_begin(), op_end());
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
2017-10-14 05:17:07 +08:00
|
|
|
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
void setMemoryUseOrder(unsigned MUO) { MemoryUseOrder = MUO; }
|
|
|
|
void setVolatile(bool V) { Volatile = V; }
|
|
|
|
|
2017-10-14 05:17:07 +08:00
|
|
|
hash_code getHashValue() const override {
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
return hash_combine(GVNExpression::BasicExpression::getHashValue(),
|
|
|
|
MemoryUseOrder, Volatile);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
template <typename Function> hash_code getHashValue(Function MapFn) {
|
|
|
|
hash_code H =
|
|
|
|
hash_combine(getOpcode(), getType(), MemoryUseOrder, Volatile);
|
|
|
|
for (auto *V : operands())
|
|
|
|
H = hash_combine(H, MapFn(V));
|
|
|
|
return H;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
class ValueTable {
|
|
|
|
DenseMap<Value *, uint32_t> ValueNumbering;
|
|
|
|
DenseMap<GVNExpression::Expression *, uint32_t> ExpressionNumbering;
|
|
|
|
DenseMap<size_t, uint32_t> HashNumbering;
|
|
|
|
BumpPtrAllocator Allocator;
|
|
|
|
ArrayRecycler<Value *> Recycler;
|
2017-10-14 05:17:07 +08:00
|
|
|
uint32_t nextValueNumber = 1;
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/// Create an expression for I based on its opcode and its uses. If I
|
|
|
|
/// touches or reads memory, the expression is also based upon its memory
|
|
|
|
/// order - see \c getMemoryUseOrder().
|
|
|
|
InstructionUseExpr *createExpr(Instruction *I) {
|
|
|
|
InstructionUseExpr *E =
|
|
|
|
new (Allocator) InstructionUseExpr(I, Recycler, Allocator);
|
|
|
|
if (isMemoryInst(I))
|
|
|
|
E->setMemoryUseOrder(getMemoryUseOrder(I));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (CmpInst *C = dyn_cast<CmpInst>(I)) {
|
|
|
|
CmpInst::Predicate Predicate = C->getPredicate();
|
|
|
|
E->setOpcode((C->getOpcode() << 8) | Predicate);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return E;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/// Helper to compute the value number for a memory instruction
|
|
|
|
/// (LoadInst/StoreInst), including checking the memory ordering and
|
|
|
|
/// volatility.
|
|
|
|
template <class Inst> InstructionUseExpr *createMemoryExpr(Inst *I) {
|
|
|
|
if (isStrongerThanUnordered(I->getOrdering()) || I->isAtomic())
|
|
|
|
return nullptr;
|
|
|
|
InstructionUseExpr *E = createExpr(I);
|
|
|
|
E->setVolatile(I->isVolatile());
|
|
|
|
return E;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
public:
|
2017-10-14 05:17:07 +08:00
|
|
|
ValueTable() = default;
|
|
|
|
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
/// Returns the value number for the specified value, assigning
|
|
|
|
/// it a new number if it did not have one before.
|
|
|
|
uint32_t lookupOrAdd(Value *V) {
|
|
|
|
auto VI = ValueNumbering.find(V);
|
|
|
|
if (VI != ValueNumbering.end())
|
|
|
|
return VI->second;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (!isa<Instruction>(V)) {
|
|
|
|
ValueNumbering[V] = nextValueNumber;
|
|
|
|
return nextValueNumber++;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Instruction *I = cast<Instruction>(V);
|
|
|
|
InstructionUseExpr *exp = nullptr;
|
|
|
|
switch (I->getOpcode()) {
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::Load:
|
|
|
|
exp = createMemoryExpr(cast<LoadInst>(I));
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::Store:
|
|
|
|
exp = createMemoryExpr(cast<StoreInst>(I));
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::Call:
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::Invoke:
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::Add:
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::FAdd:
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::Sub:
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::FSub:
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::Mul:
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::FMul:
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::UDiv:
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::SDiv:
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::FDiv:
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::URem:
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::SRem:
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::FRem:
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::Shl:
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::LShr:
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::AShr:
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::And:
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::Or:
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::Xor:
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::ICmp:
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::FCmp:
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::Trunc:
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::ZExt:
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::SExt:
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::FPToUI:
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::FPToSI:
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::UIToFP:
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::SIToFP:
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::FPTrunc:
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::FPExt:
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::PtrToInt:
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::IntToPtr:
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::BitCast:
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::Select:
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::ExtractElement:
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::InsertElement:
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::ShuffleVector:
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::InsertValue:
|
|
|
|
case Instruction::GetElementPtr:
|
|
|
|
exp = createExpr(I);
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
default:
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (!exp) {
|
|
|
|
ValueNumbering[V] = nextValueNumber;
|
|
|
|
return nextValueNumber++;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
uint32_t e = ExpressionNumbering[exp];
|
|
|
|
if (!e) {
|
|
|
|
hash_code H = exp->getHashValue([=](Value *V) { return lookupOrAdd(V); });
|
|
|
|
auto I = HashNumbering.find(H);
|
|
|
|
if (I != HashNumbering.end()) {
|
|
|
|
e = I->second;
|
|
|
|
} else {
|
|
|
|
e = nextValueNumber++;
|
|
|
|
HashNumbering[H] = e;
|
|
|
|
ExpressionNumbering[exp] = e;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
ValueNumbering[V] = e;
|
|
|
|
return e;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/// Returns the value number of the specified value. Fails if the value has
|
|
|
|
/// not yet been numbered.
|
|
|
|
uint32_t lookup(Value *V) const {
|
|
|
|
auto VI = ValueNumbering.find(V);
|
|
|
|
assert(VI != ValueNumbering.end() && "Value not numbered?");
|
|
|
|
return VI->second;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/// Removes all value numberings and resets the value table.
|
|
|
|
void clear() {
|
|
|
|
ValueNumbering.clear();
|
|
|
|
ExpressionNumbering.clear();
|
|
|
|
HashNumbering.clear();
|
|
|
|
Recycler.clear(Allocator);
|
|
|
|
nextValueNumber = 1;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/// \c Inst uses or touches memory. Return an ID describing the memory state
|
|
|
|
/// at \c Inst such that if getMemoryUseOrder(I1) == getMemoryUseOrder(I2),
|
|
|
|
/// the exact same memory operations happen after I1 and I2.
|
|
|
|
///
|
|
|
|
/// This is a very hard problem in general, so we use domain-specific
|
|
|
|
/// knowledge that we only ever check for equivalence between blocks sharing a
|
|
|
|
/// single immediate successor that is common, and when determining if I1 ==
|
|
|
|
/// I2 we will have already determined that next(I1) == next(I2). This
|
|
|
|
/// inductive property allows us to simply return the value number of the next
|
|
|
|
/// instruction that defines memory.
|
|
|
|
uint32_t getMemoryUseOrder(Instruction *Inst) {
|
|
|
|
auto *BB = Inst->getParent();
|
|
|
|
for (auto I = std::next(Inst->getIterator()), E = BB->end();
|
|
|
|
I != E && !I->isTerminator(); ++I) {
|
|
|
|
if (!isMemoryInst(&*I))
|
|
|
|
continue;
|
|
|
|
if (isa<LoadInst>(&*I))
|
|
|
|
continue;
|
|
|
|
CallInst *CI = dyn_cast<CallInst>(&*I);
|
|
|
|
if (CI && CI->onlyReadsMemory())
|
|
|
|
continue;
|
|
|
|
InvokeInst *II = dyn_cast<InvokeInst>(&*I);
|
|
|
|
if (II && II->onlyReadsMemory())
|
|
|
|
continue;
|
|
|
|
return lookupOrAdd(&*I);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return 0;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
class GVNSink {
|
|
|
|
public:
|
2017-10-14 05:17:07 +08:00
|
|
|
GVNSink() = default;
|
|
|
|
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
bool run(Function &F) {
|
2018-05-14 20:53:11 +08:00
|
|
|
LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "GVNSink: running on function @" << F.getName()
|
|
|
|
<< "\n");
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unsigned NumSunk = 0;
|
|
|
|
ReversePostOrderTraversal<Function*> RPOT(&F);
|
|
|
|
for (auto *N : RPOT)
|
|
|
|
NumSunk += sinkBB(N);
|
2018-07-31 03:41:25 +08:00
|
|
|
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
return NumSunk > 0;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
private:
|
|
|
|
ValueTable VN;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bool isInstructionBlacklisted(Instruction *I) {
|
|
|
|
// These instructions may change or break semantics if moved.
|
|
|
|
if (isa<PHINode>(I) || I->isEHPad() || isa<AllocaInst>(I) ||
|
|
|
|
I->getType()->isTokenTy())
|
|
|
|
return true;
|
|
|
|
return false;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/// The main heuristic function. Analyze the set of instructions pointed to by
|
|
|
|
/// LRI and return a candidate solution if these instructions can be sunk, or
|
|
|
|
/// None otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Optional<SinkingInstructionCandidate> analyzeInstructionForSinking(
|
|
|
|
LockstepReverseIterator &LRI, unsigned &InstNum, unsigned &MemoryInstNum,
|
|
|
|
ModelledPHISet &NeededPHIs, SmallPtrSetImpl<Value *> &PHIContents);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/// Create a ModelledPHI for each PHI in BB, adding to PHIs.
|
|
|
|
void analyzeInitialPHIs(BasicBlock *BB, ModelledPHISet &PHIs,
|
|
|
|
SmallPtrSetImpl<Value *> &PHIContents) {
|
2017-12-30 23:27:33 +08:00
|
|
|
for (PHINode &PN : BB->phis()) {
|
|
|
|
auto MPHI = ModelledPHI(&PN);
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
PHIs.insert(MPHI);
|
|
|
|
for (auto *V : MPHI.getValues())
|
|
|
|
PHIContents.insert(V);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/// The main instruction sinking driver. Set up state and try and sink
|
|
|
|
/// instructions into BBEnd from its predecessors.
|
|
|
|
unsigned sinkBB(BasicBlock *BBEnd);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/// Perform the actual mechanics of sinking an instruction from Blocks into
|
|
|
|
/// BBEnd, which is their only successor.
|
|
|
|
void sinkLastInstruction(ArrayRef<BasicBlock *> Blocks, BasicBlock *BBEnd);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/// Remove PHIs that all have the same incoming value.
|
|
|
|
void foldPointlessPHINodes(BasicBlock *BB) {
|
|
|
|
auto I = BB->begin();
|
|
|
|
while (PHINode *PN = dyn_cast<PHINode>(I++)) {
|
2017-10-14 05:17:07 +08:00
|
|
|
if (!llvm::all_of(PN->incoming_values(), [&](const Value *V) {
|
|
|
|
return V == PN->getIncomingValue(0);
|
|
|
|
}))
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
continue;
|
|
|
|
if (PN->getIncomingValue(0) != PN)
|
|
|
|
PN->replaceAllUsesWith(PN->getIncomingValue(0));
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
PN->replaceAllUsesWith(UndefValue::get(PN->getType()));
|
|
|
|
PN->eraseFromParent();
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Optional<SinkingInstructionCandidate> GVNSink::analyzeInstructionForSinking(
|
|
|
|
LockstepReverseIterator &LRI, unsigned &InstNum, unsigned &MemoryInstNum,
|
|
|
|
ModelledPHISet &NeededPHIs, SmallPtrSetImpl<Value *> &PHIContents) {
|
|
|
|
auto Insts = *LRI;
|
2018-05-14 20:53:11 +08:00
|
|
|
LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << " -- Analyzing instruction set: [\n"; for (auto *I
|
|
|
|
: Insts) {
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
I->dump();
|
|
|
|
} dbgs() << " ]\n";);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DenseMap<uint32_t, unsigned> VNums;
|
|
|
|
for (auto *I : Insts) {
|
|
|
|
uint32_t N = VN.lookupOrAdd(I);
|
2018-05-14 20:53:11 +08:00
|
|
|
LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << " VN=" << Twine::utohexstr(N) << " for" << *I << "\n");
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
if (N == ~0U)
|
|
|
|
return None;
|
|
|
|
VNums[N]++;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
unsigned VNumToSink =
|
|
|
|
std::max_element(VNums.begin(), VNums.end(),
|
|
|
|
[](const std::pair<uint32_t, unsigned> &I,
|
|
|
|
const std::pair<uint32_t, unsigned> &J) {
|
|
|
|
return I.second < J.second;
|
|
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
->first;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (VNums[VNumToSink] == 1)
|
|
|
|
// Can't sink anything!
|
|
|
|
return None;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Now restrict the number of incoming blocks down to only those with
|
|
|
|
// VNumToSink.
|
|
|
|
auto &ActivePreds = LRI.getActiveBlocks();
|
|
|
|
unsigned InitialActivePredSize = ActivePreds.size();
|
|
|
|
SmallVector<Instruction *, 4> NewInsts;
|
|
|
|
for (auto *I : Insts) {
|
|
|
|
if (VN.lookup(I) != VNumToSink)
|
2017-10-24 03:56:52 +08:00
|
|
|
ActivePreds.remove(I->getParent());
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
NewInsts.push_back(I);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
for (auto *I : NewInsts)
|
|
|
|
if (isInstructionBlacklisted(I))
|
|
|
|
return None;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// If we've restricted the incoming blocks, restrict all needed PHIs also
|
|
|
|
// to that set.
|
|
|
|
bool RecomputePHIContents = false;
|
|
|
|
if (ActivePreds.size() != InitialActivePredSize) {
|
|
|
|
ModelledPHISet NewNeededPHIs;
|
|
|
|
for (auto P : NeededPHIs) {
|
|
|
|
P.restrictToBlocks(ActivePreds);
|
|
|
|
NewNeededPHIs.insert(P);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
NeededPHIs = NewNeededPHIs;
|
|
|
|
LRI.restrictToBlocks(ActivePreds);
|
|
|
|
RecomputePHIContents = true;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// The sunk instruction's results.
|
|
|
|
ModelledPHI NewPHI(NewInsts, ActivePreds);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Does sinking this instruction render previous PHIs redundant?
|
|
|
|
if (NeededPHIs.find(NewPHI) != NeededPHIs.end()) {
|
|
|
|
NeededPHIs.erase(NewPHI);
|
|
|
|
RecomputePHIContents = true;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (RecomputePHIContents) {
|
|
|
|
// The needed PHIs have changed, so recompute the set of all needed
|
|
|
|
// values.
|
|
|
|
PHIContents.clear();
|
|
|
|
for (auto &PHI : NeededPHIs)
|
|
|
|
PHIContents.insert(PHI.getValues().begin(), PHI.getValues().end());
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Is this instruction required by a later PHI that doesn't match this PHI?
|
|
|
|
// if so, we can't sink this instruction.
|
|
|
|
for (auto *V : NewPHI.getValues())
|
|
|
|
if (PHIContents.count(V))
|
|
|
|
// V exists in this PHI, but the whole PHI is different to NewPHI
|
|
|
|
// (else it would have been removed earlier). We cannot continue
|
|
|
|
// because this isn't representable.
|
|
|
|
return None;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Which operands need PHIs?
|
|
|
|
// FIXME: If any of these fail, we should partition up the candidates to
|
|
|
|
// try and continue making progress.
|
|
|
|
Instruction *I0 = NewInsts[0];
|
|
|
|
for (unsigned OpNum = 0, E = I0->getNumOperands(); OpNum != E; ++OpNum) {
|
|
|
|
ModelledPHI PHI(NewInsts, OpNum, ActivePreds);
|
|
|
|
if (PHI.areAllIncomingValuesSame())
|
|
|
|
continue;
|
|
|
|
if (!canReplaceOperandWithVariable(I0, OpNum))
|
|
|
|
// We can 't create a PHI from this instruction!
|
|
|
|
return None;
|
|
|
|
if (NeededPHIs.count(PHI))
|
|
|
|
continue;
|
|
|
|
if (!PHI.areAllIncomingValuesSameType())
|
|
|
|
return None;
|
|
|
|
// Don't create indirect calls! The called value is the final operand.
|
|
|
|
if ((isa<CallInst>(I0) || isa<InvokeInst>(I0)) && OpNum == E - 1 &&
|
|
|
|
PHI.areAnyIncomingValuesConstant())
|
|
|
|
return None;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NeededPHIs.reserve(NeededPHIs.size());
|
|
|
|
NeededPHIs.insert(PHI);
|
|
|
|
PHIContents.insert(PHI.getValues().begin(), PHI.getValues().end());
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (isMemoryInst(NewInsts[0]))
|
|
|
|
++MemoryInstNum;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SinkingInstructionCandidate Cand;
|
|
|
|
Cand.NumInstructions = ++InstNum;
|
|
|
|
Cand.NumMemoryInsts = MemoryInstNum;
|
|
|
|
Cand.NumBlocks = ActivePreds.size();
|
|
|
|
Cand.NumPHIs = NeededPHIs.size();
|
|
|
|
for (auto *C : ActivePreds)
|
|
|
|
Cand.Blocks.push_back(C);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return Cand;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unsigned GVNSink::sinkBB(BasicBlock *BBEnd) {
|
2018-05-14 20:53:11 +08:00
|
|
|
LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "GVNSink: running on basic block ";
|
|
|
|
BBEnd->printAsOperand(dbgs()); dbgs() << "\n");
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
SmallVector<BasicBlock *, 4> Preds;
|
|
|
|
for (auto *B : predecessors(BBEnd)) {
|
|
|
|
auto *T = B->getTerminator();
|
|
|
|
if (isa<BranchInst>(T) || isa<SwitchInst>(T))
|
|
|
|
Preds.push_back(B);
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
return 0;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (Preds.size() < 2)
|
|
|
|
return 0;
|
llvm::sort(C.begin(), C.end(), ...) -> llvm::sort(C, ...)
Summary: The convenience wrapper in STLExtras is available since rL342102.
Reviewers: dblaikie, javed.absar, JDevlieghere, andreadb
Subscribers: MatzeB, sanjoy, arsenm, dschuff, mehdi_amini, sdardis, nemanjai, jvesely, nhaehnle, sbc100, jgravelle-google, eraman, aheejin, kbarton, JDevlieghere, javed.absar, gbedwell, jrtc27, mgrang, atanasyan, steven_wu, george.burgess.iv, dexonsmith, kristina, jsji, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52573
llvm-svn: 343163
2018-09-27 10:13:45 +08:00
|
|
|
llvm::sort(Preds);
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unsigned NumOrigPreds = Preds.size();
|
|
|
|
// We can only sink instructions through unconditional branches.
|
|
|
|
for (auto I = Preds.begin(); I != Preds.end();) {
|
|
|
|
if ((*I)->getTerminator()->getNumSuccessors() != 1)
|
|
|
|
I = Preds.erase(I);
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
++I;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LockstepReverseIterator LRI(Preds);
|
|
|
|
SmallVector<SinkingInstructionCandidate, 4> Candidates;
|
|
|
|
unsigned InstNum = 0, MemoryInstNum = 0;
|
|
|
|
ModelledPHISet NeededPHIs;
|
|
|
|
SmallPtrSet<Value *, 4> PHIContents;
|
|
|
|
analyzeInitialPHIs(BBEnd, NeededPHIs, PHIContents);
|
|
|
|
unsigned NumOrigPHIs = NeededPHIs.size();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
while (LRI.isValid()) {
|
|
|
|
auto Cand = analyzeInstructionForSinking(LRI, InstNum, MemoryInstNum,
|
|
|
|
NeededPHIs, PHIContents);
|
|
|
|
if (!Cand)
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
Cand->calculateCost(NumOrigPHIs, Preds.size());
|
|
|
|
Candidates.emplace_back(*Cand);
|
|
|
|
--LRI;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2019-04-23 22:51:27 +08:00
|
|
|
llvm::stable_sort(Candidates, std::greater<SinkingInstructionCandidate>());
|
2018-05-14 20:53:11 +08:00
|
|
|
LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << " -- Sinking candidates:\n"; for (auto &C
|
|
|
|
: Candidates) dbgs()
|
|
|
|
<< " " << C << "\n";);
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Pick the top candidate, as long it is positive!
|
|
|
|
if (Candidates.empty() || Candidates.front().Cost <= 0)
|
|
|
|
return 0;
|
|
|
|
auto C = Candidates.front();
|
|
|
|
|
2018-05-14 20:53:11 +08:00
|
|
|
LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << " -- Sinking: " << C << "\n");
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
BasicBlock *InsertBB = BBEnd;
|
|
|
|
if (C.Blocks.size() < NumOrigPreds) {
|
2018-05-14 20:53:11 +08:00
|
|
|
LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << " -- Splitting edge to ";
|
|
|
|
BBEnd->printAsOperand(dbgs()); dbgs() << "\n");
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
InsertBB = SplitBlockPredecessors(BBEnd, C.Blocks, ".gvnsink.split");
|
|
|
|
if (!InsertBB) {
|
2018-05-14 20:53:11 +08:00
|
|
|
LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << " -- FAILED to split edge!\n");
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
// Edge couldn't be split.
|
|
|
|
return 0;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
for (unsigned I = 0; I < C.NumInstructions; ++I)
|
|
|
|
sinkLastInstruction(C.Blocks, InsertBB);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return C.NumInstructions;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void GVNSink::sinkLastInstruction(ArrayRef<BasicBlock *> Blocks,
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *BBEnd) {
|
|
|
|
SmallVector<Instruction *, 4> Insts;
|
|
|
|
for (BasicBlock *BB : Blocks)
|
|
|
|
Insts.push_back(BB->getTerminator()->getPrevNode());
|
|
|
|
Instruction *I0 = Insts.front();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SmallVector<Value *, 4> NewOperands;
|
|
|
|
for (unsigned O = 0, E = I0->getNumOperands(); O != E; ++O) {
|
2017-10-14 05:17:07 +08:00
|
|
|
bool NeedPHI = llvm::any_of(Insts, [&I0, O](const Instruction *I) {
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
return I->getOperand(O) != I0->getOperand(O);
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
if (!NeedPHI) {
|
|
|
|
NewOperands.push_back(I0->getOperand(O));
|
|
|
|
continue;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Create a new PHI in the successor block and populate it.
|
|
|
|
auto *Op = I0->getOperand(O);
|
|
|
|
assert(!Op->getType()->isTokenTy() && "Can't PHI tokens!");
|
|
|
|
auto *PN = PHINode::Create(Op->getType(), Insts.size(),
|
|
|
|
Op->getName() + ".sink", &BBEnd->front());
|
|
|
|
for (auto *I : Insts)
|
|
|
|
PN->addIncoming(I->getOperand(O), I->getParent());
|
|
|
|
NewOperands.push_back(PN);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Arbitrarily use I0 as the new "common" instruction; remap its operands
|
|
|
|
// and move it to the start of the successor block.
|
|
|
|
for (unsigned O = 0, E = I0->getNumOperands(); O != E; ++O)
|
|
|
|
I0->getOperandUse(O).set(NewOperands[O]);
|
|
|
|
I0->moveBefore(&*BBEnd->getFirstInsertionPt());
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Update metadata and IR flags.
|
|
|
|
for (auto *I : Insts)
|
|
|
|
if (I != I0) {
|
2018-08-24 19:40:04 +08:00
|
|
|
combineMetadataForCSE(I0, I, true);
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
I0->andIRFlags(I);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
for (auto *I : Insts)
|
|
|
|
if (I != I0)
|
|
|
|
I->replaceAllUsesWith(I0);
|
|
|
|
foldPointlessPHINodes(BBEnd);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Finally nuke all instructions apart from the common instruction.
|
|
|
|
for (auto *I : Insts)
|
|
|
|
if (I != I0)
|
|
|
|
I->eraseFromParent();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NumRemoved += Insts.size() - 1;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
|
|
|
|
// Pass machinery / boilerplate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
class GVNSinkLegacyPass : public FunctionPass {
|
|
|
|
public:
|
|
|
|
static char ID;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GVNSinkLegacyPass() : FunctionPass(ID) {
|
|
|
|
initializeGVNSinkLegacyPassPass(*PassRegistry::getPassRegistry());
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bool runOnFunction(Function &F) override {
|
|
|
|
if (skipFunction(F))
|
|
|
|
return false;
|
|
|
|
GVNSink G;
|
|
|
|
return G.run(F);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const override {
|
|
|
|
AU.addPreserved<GlobalsAAWrapperPass>();
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
};
|
2017-10-14 05:17:07 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
} // end anonymous namespace
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PreservedAnalyses GVNSinkPass::run(Function &F, FunctionAnalysisManager &AM) {
|
|
|
|
GVNSink G;
|
|
|
|
if (!G.run(F))
|
|
|
|
return PreservedAnalyses::all();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PreservedAnalyses PA;
|
|
|
|
PA.preserve<GlobalsAA>();
|
|
|
|
return PA;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
char GVNSinkLegacyPass::ID = 0;
|
2017-10-14 05:17:07 +08:00
|
|
|
|
[GVNSink] GVNSink pass
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
2017-05-25 20:51:11 +08:00
|
|
|
INITIALIZE_PASS_BEGIN(GVNSinkLegacyPass, "gvn-sink",
|
|
|
|
"Early GVN sinking of Expressions", false, false)
|
|
|
|
INITIALIZE_PASS_DEPENDENCY(DominatorTreeWrapperPass)
|
|
|
|
INITIALIZE_PASS_DEPENDENCY(PostDominatorTreeWrapperPass)
|
|
|
|
INITIALIZE_PASS_END(GVNSinkLegacyPass, "gvn-sink",
|
|
|
|
"Early GVN sinking of Expressions", false, false)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FunctionPass *llvm::createGVNSinkPass() { return new GVNSinkLegacyPass(); }
|