As discussed in https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43870,
this transform is missing a crucial legality check:
the old (non-countable) loop would early-return upon first mismatch,
but there is no such guarantee for bcmp/memcmp.
We'd need to ensure that [PtrA, PtrA+NBytes) and [PtrB, PtrB+NBytes)
are fully dereferenceable memory regions. But that would limit
the transform to constant loop trip counts and would further
cripple it because dereferenceability analysis is *very* partial.
Furthermore, even if all that is done, every single test
would need to be rewritten from scratch.
So let's just give up.
We can't normally stumble into that assertion because a tautological
*conditional* `br` in loop body is required, one that always
branches to loop latch. But that should have been always folded
to an unconditional branch before we get it.
But that is not guaranteed if the pass is run standalone.
So let's just promote the assertion into a proper check.
Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43687
llvm-svn: 375100
As reported by Joerg Sonnenberger in IRC, for 32-bit systems,
where pointer and size_t are 32-bit, if you use 64-bit-wide variable
in the loop, you could end up with loop exit count being of the type
wider than the size_t. Now, i'm not sure if we can produce `bcmp`
from that (just truncate?), but we certainly should not assert/miscompile.
llvm-svn: 374811
Summary:
This is a recommit, this originally landed in rL370454 but was
subsequently reverted in rL370788 due to
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43206
The reduced testcase was added to bcmp-negative-tests.ll
as @pr43206_different_loops - we must ensure that the SCEV's
we got are both for the same loop we are currently investigating.
Original commit message:
@mclow.lists brought up this issue up in IRC.
It is a reasonably common problem to compare some two values for equality.
Those may be just some integers, strings or arrays of integers.
In C, there is `memcmp()`, `bcmp()` functions.
In C++, there exists `std::equal()` algorithm.
One can also write that function manually.
libstdc++'s `std::equal()` is specialized to directly call `memcmp()` for
various types, but not `std::byte` from C++2a. https://godbolt.org/z/mx2ejJ
libc++ does not do anything like that, it simply relies on simple C++'s
`operator==()`. https://godbolt.org/z/er0Zwf (GOOD!)
So likely, there exists a certain performance opportunities.
Let's compare performance of naive `std::equal()` (no `memcmp()`) with one that
is using `memcmp()` (in this case, compiled with modified compiler). {F8768213}
```
#include <algorithm>
#include <cmath>
#include <cstdint>
#include <iterator>
#include <limits>
#include <random>
#include <type_traits>
#include <utility>
#include <vector>
#include "benchmark/benchmark.h"
template <class T>
bool equal(T* a, T* a_end, T* b) noexcept {
for (; a != a_end; ++a, ++b) {
if (*a != *b) return false;
}
return true;
}
template <typename T>
std::vector<T> getVectorOfRandomNumbers(size_t count) {
std::random_device rd;
std::mt19937 gen(rd());
std::uniform_int_distribution<T> dis(std::numeric_limits<T>::min(),
std::numeric_limits<T>::max());
std::vector<T> v;
v.reserve(count);
std::generate_n(std::back_inserter(v), count,
[&dis, &gen]() { return dis(gen); });
assert(v.size() == count);
return v;
}
struct Identical {
template <typename T>
static std::pair<std::vector<T>, std::vector<T>> Gen(size_t count) {
auto Tmp = getVectorOfRandomNumbers<T>(count);
return std::make_pair(Tmp, std::move(Tmp));
}
};
struct InequalHalfway {
template <typename T>
static std::pair<std::vector<T>, std::vector<T>> Gen(size_t count) {
auto V0 = getVectorOfRandomNumbers<T>(count);
auto V1 = V0;
V1[V1.size() / size_t(2)]++; // just change the value.
return std::make_pair(std::move(V0), std::move(V1));
}
};
template <class T, class Gen>
void BM_bcmp(benchmark::State& state) {
const size_t Length = state.range(0);
const std::pair<std::vector<T>, std::vector<T>> Data =
Gen::template Gen<T>(Length);
const std::vector<T>& a = Data.first;
const std::vector<T>& b = Data.second;
assert(a.size() == Length && b.size() == a.size());
benchmark::ClobberMemory();
benchmark::DoNotOptimize(a);
benchmark::DoNotOptimize(a.data());
benchmark::DoNotOptimize(b);
benchmark::DoNotOptimize(b.data());
for (auto _ : state) {
const bool is_equal = equal(a.data(), a.data() + a.size(), b.data());
benchmark::DoNotOptimize(is_equal);
}
state.SetComplexityN(Length);
state.counters["eltcnt"] =
benchmark::Counter(Length, benchmark::Counter::kIsIterationInvariant);
state.counters["eltcnt/sec"] =
benchmark::Counter(Length, benchmark::Counter::kIsIterationInvariantRate);
const size_t BytesRead = 2 * sizeof(T) * Length;
state.counters["bytes_read/iteration"] =
benchmark::Counter(BytesRead, benchmark::Counter::kDefaults,
benchmark::Counter::OneK::kIs1024);
state.counters["bytes_read/sec"] = benchmark::Counter(
BytesRead, benchmark::Counter::kIsIterationInvariantRate,
benchmark::Counter::OneK::kIs1024);
}
template <typename T>
static void CustomArguments(benchmark::internal::Benchmark* b) {
const size_t L2SizeBytes = []() {
for (const benchmark::CPUInfo::CacheInfo& I :
benchmark::CPUInfo::Get().caches) {
if (I.level == 2) return I.size;
}
return 0;
}();
// What is the largest range we can check to always fit within given L2 cache?
const size_t MaxLen = L2SizeBytes / /*total bufs*/ 2 /
/*maximal elt size*/ sizeof(T) / /*safety margin*/ 2;
b->RangeMultiplier(2)->Range(1, MaxLen)->Complexity(benchmark::oN);
}
BENCHMARK_TEMPLATE(BM_bcmp, uint8_t, Identical)
->Apply(CustomArguments<uint8_t>);
BENCHMARK_TEMPLATE(BM_bcmp, uint16_t, Identical)
->Apply(CustomArguments<uint16_t>);
BENCHMARK_TEMPLATE(BM_bcmp, uint32_t, Identical)
->Apply(CustomArguments<uint32_t>);
BENCHMARK_TEMPLATE(BM_bcmp, uint64_t, Identical)
->Apply(CustomArguments<uint64_t>);
BENCHMARK_TEMPLATE(BM_bcmp, uint8_t, InequalHalfway)
->Apply(CustomArguments<uint8_t>);
BENCHMARK_TEMPLATE(BM_bcmp, uint16_t, InequalHalfway)
->Apply(CustomArguments<uint16_t>);
BENCHMARK_TEMPLATE(BM_bcmp, uint32_t, InequalHalfway)
->Apply(CustomArguments<uint32_t>);
BENCHMARK_TEMPLATE(BM_bcmp, uint64_t, InequalHalfway)
->Apply(CustomArguments<uint64_t>);
```
{F8768210}
```
$ ~/src/googlebenchmark/tools/compare.py --no-utest benchmarks build-{old,new}/test/llvm-bcmp-bench
RUNNING: build-old/test/llvm-bcmp-bench --benchmark_out=/tmp/tmpb6PEUx
2019-04-25 21:17:11
Running build-old/test/llvm-bcmp-bench
Run on (8 X 4000 MHz CPU s)
CPU Caches:
L1 Data 16K (x8)
L1 Instruction 64K (x4)
L2 Unified 2048K (x4)
L3 Unified 8192K (x1)
Load Average: 0.65, 3.90, 4.14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark Time CPU Iterations UserCounters...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, Identical>/512000 432131 ns 432101 ns 1613 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=2.20706G/s eltcnt=825.856M eltcnt/sec=1.18491G/s
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, Identical>_BigO 0.86 N 0.86 N
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, Identical>_RMS 8 % 8 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, Identical>/256000 161408 ns 161409 ns 4027 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=5.90843G/s eltcnt=1030.91M eltcnt/sec=1.58603G/s
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, Identical>_BigO 0.67 N 0.67 N
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, Identical>_RMS 25 % 25 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, Identical>/128000 81497 ns 81488 ns 8415 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=11.7032G/s eltcnt=1077.12M eltcnt/sec=1.57078G/s
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, Identical>_BigO 0.71 N 0.71 N
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, Identical>_RMS 42 % 42 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, Identical>/64000 50138 ns 50138 ns 10909 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=19.0209G/s eltcnt=698.176M eltcnt/sec=1.27647G/s
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, Identical>_BigO 0.84 N 0.84 N
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, Identical>_RMS 27 % 27 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, InequalHalfway>/512000 192405 ns 192392 ns 3638 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=4.95694G/s eltcnt=1.86266G eltcnt/sec=2.66124G/s
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, InequalHalfway>_BigO 0.38 N 0.38 N
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, InequalHalfway>_RMS 3 % 3 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, InequalHalfway>/256000 127858 ns 127860 ns 5477 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=7.45873G/s eltcnt=1.40211G eltcnt/sec=2.00219G/s
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, InequalHalfway>_BigO 0.50 N 0.50 N
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, InequalHalfway>_RMS 0 % 0 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, InequalHalfway>/128000 49140 ns 49140 ns 14281 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=19.4072G/s eltcnt=1.82797G eltcnt/sec=2.60478G/s
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, InequalHalfway>_BigO 0.40 N 0.40 N
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, InequalHalfway>_RMS 18 % 18 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, InequalHalfway>/64000 32101 ns 32099 ns 21786 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=29.7101G/s eltcnt=1.3943G eltcnt/sec=1.99381G/s
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, InequalHalfway>_BigO 0.50 N 0.50 N
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, InequalHalfway>_RMS 1 % 1 %
RUNNING: build-new/test/llvm-bcmp-bench --benchmark_out=/tmp/tmpQ46PP0
2019-04-25 21:19:29
Running build-new/test/llvm-bcmp-bench
Run on (8 X 4000 MHz CPU s)
CPU Caches:
L1 Data 16K (x8)
L1 Instruction 64K (x4)
L2 Unified 2048K (x4)
L3 Unified 8192K (x1)
Load Average: 1.01, 2.85, 3.71
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark Time CPU Iterations UserCounters...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, Identical>/512000 18593 ns 18590 ns 37565 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=51.2991G/s eltcnt=19.2333G eltcnt/sec=27.541G/s
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, Identical>_BigO 0.04 N 0.04 N
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, Identical>_RMS 37 % 37 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, Identical>/256000 18950 ns 18948 ns 37223 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=50.3324G/s eltcnt=9.52909G eltcnt/sec=13.511G/s
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, Identical>_BigO 0.08 N 0.08 N
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, Identical>_RMS 34 % 34 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, Identical>/128000 18627 ns 18627 ns 37895 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=51.198G/s eltcnt=4.85056G eltcnt/sec=6.87168G/s
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, Identical>_BigO 0.16 N 0.16 N
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, Identical>_RMS 35 % 35 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, Identical>/64000 18855 ns 18855 ns 37458 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=50.5791G/s eltcnt=2.39731G eltcnt/sec=3.3943G/s
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, Identical>_BigO 0.32 N 0.32 N
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, Identical>_RMS 33 % 33 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, InequalHalfway>/512000 9570 ns 9569 ns 73500 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=99.6601G/s eltcnt=37.632G eltcnt/sec=53.5046G/s
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, InequalHalfway>_BigO 0.02 N 0.02 N
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, InequalHalfway>_RMS 29 % 29 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, InequalHalfway>/256000 9547 ns 9547 ns 74343 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=99.8971G/s eltcnt=19.0318G eltcnt/sec=26.8159G/s
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, InequalHalfway>_BigO 0.04 N 0.04 N
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, InequalHalfway>_RMS 29 % 29 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, InequalHalfway>/128000 9396 ns 9394 ns 73521 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=101.518G/s eltcnt=9.41069G eltcnt/sec=13.6255G/s
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, InequalHalfway>_BigO 0.08 N 0.08 N
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, InequalHalfway>_RMS 30 % 30 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, InequalHalfway>/64000 9499 ns 9498 ns 73802 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=100.405G/s eltcnt=4.72333G eltcnt/sec=6.73808G/s
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, InequalHalfway>_BigO 0.16 N 0.16 N
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, InequalHalfway>_RMS 28 % 28 %
Comparing build-old/test/llvm-bcmp-bench to build-new/test/llvm-bcmp-bench
Benchmark Time CPU Time Old Time New CPU Old CPU New
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, Identical>/512000 -0.9570 -0.9570 432131 18593 432101 18590
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, Identical>/256000 -0.8826 -0.8826 161408 18950 161409 18948
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, Identical>/128000 -0.7714 -0.7714 81497 18627 81488 18627
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, Identical>/64000 -0.6239 -0.6239 50138 18855 50138 18855
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, InequalHalfway>/512000 -0.9503 -0.9503 192405 9570 192392 9569
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, InequalHalfway>/256000 -0.9253 -0.9253 127858 9547 127860 9547
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, InequalHalfway>/128000 -0.8088 -0.8088 49140 9396 49140 9394
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, InequalHalfway>/64000 -0.7041 -0.7041 32101 9499 32099 9498
```
What can we tell from the benchmark?
* Performance of naive equality check somewhat improves with element size,
maxing out at eltcnt/sec=1.58603G/s for uint16_t, or bytes_read/sec=19.0209G/s
for uint64_t. I think, that instability implies performance problems.
* Performance of `memcmp()`-aware benchmark always maxes out at around
bytes_read/sec=51.2991G/s for every type. That is 2.6x the throughput of the
naive variant!
* eltcnt/sec metric for the `memcmp()`-aware benchmark maxes out at
eltcnt/sec=27.541G/s for uint8_t (was: eltcnt/sec=1.18491G/s, so 24x) and
linearly decreases with element size.
For uint64_t, it's ~4x+ the elements/second.
* The call obvious is more pricey than the loop, with small element count.
As it can be seen from the full output {F8768210}, the `memcmp()` is almost
universally worse, independent of the element size (and thus buffer size) when
element count is less than 8.
So all in all, bcmp idiom does indeed pose untapped performance headroom.
This diff does implement said idiom recognition. I think a reasonable test
coverage is present, but do tell if there is anything obvious missing.
Now, quality. This does succeed to build and pass the test-suite, at least
without any non-bundled elements. {F8768216} {F8768217}
This transform fires 91 times:
```
$ /build/test-suite/utils/compare.py -m loop-idiom.NumBCmp result-new.json
Tests: 1149
Metric: loop-idiom.NumBCmp
Program result-new
MultiSourc...Benchmarks/7zip/7zip-benchmark 79.00
MultiSource/Applications/d/make_dparser 3.00
SingleSource/UnitTests/vla 2.00
MultiSource/Applications/Burg/burg 1.00
MultiSourc.../Applications/JM/lencod/lencod 1.00
MultiSource/Applications/lemon/lemon 1.00
MultiSource/Benchmarks/Bullet/bullet 1.00
MultiSourc...e/Benchmarks/MallocBench/gs/gs 1.00
MultiSourc...gs-C/TimberWolfMC/timberwolfmc 1.00
MultiSourc...Prolangs-C/simulator/simulator 1.00
```
The size changes are:
I'm not sure what's going on with SingleSource/UnitTests/vla.test yet, did not look.
```
$ /build/test-suite/utils/compare.py -m size..text result-{old,new}.json --filter-hash
Tests: 1149
Same hash: 907 (filtered out)
Remaining: 242
Metric: size..text
Program result-old result-new diff
test-suite...ingleSource/UnitTests/vla.test 753.00 833.00 10.6%
test-suite...marks/7zip/7zip-benchmark.test 1001697.00 966657.00 -3.5%
test-suite...ngs-C/simulator/simulator.test 32369.00 32321.00 -0.1%
test-suite...plications/d/make_dparser.test 89585.00 89505.00 -0.1%
test-suite...ce/Applications/Burg/burg.test 40817.00 40785.00 -0.1%
test-suite.../Applications/lemon/lemon.test 47281.00 47249.00 -0.1%
test-suite...TimberWolfMC/timberwolfmc.test 250065.00 250113.00 0.0%
test-suite...chmarks/MallocBench/gs/gs.test 149889.00 149873.00 -0.0%
test-suite...ications/JM/lencod/lencod.test 769585.00 769569.00 -0.0%
test-suite.../Benchmarks/Bullet/bullet.test 770049.00 770049.00 0.0%
test-suite...HMARK_ANISTROPIC_DIFFUSION/128 NaN NaN nan%
test-suite...HMARK_ANISTROPIC_DIFFUSION/256 NaN NaN nan%
test-suite...CHMARK_ANISTROPIC_DIFFUSION/64 NaN NaN nan%
test-suite...CHMARK_ANISTROPIC_DIFFUSION/32 NaN NaN nan%
test-suite...ENCHMARK_BILATERAL_FILTER/64/4 NaN NaN nan%
Geomean difference nan%
result-old result-new diff
count 1.000000e+01 10.00000 10.000000
mean 3.152090e+05 311695.40000 0.006749
std 3.790398e+05 372091.42232 0.036605
min 7.530000e+02 833.00000 -0.034981
25% 4.243300e+04 42401.00000 -0.000866
50% 1.197370e+05 119689.00000 -0.000392
75% 6.397050e+05 639705.00000 -0.000005
max 1.001697e+06 966657.00000 0.106242
```
I don't have timings though.
And now to the code. The basic idea is to completely replace the whole loop.
If we can't fully kill it, don't transform.
I have left one or two comments in the code, so hopefully it can be understood.
Also, there is a few TODO's that i have left for follow-ups:
* widening of `memcmp()`/`bcmp()`
* step smaller than the comparison size
* Metadata propagation
* more than two blocks as long as there is still a single backedge?
* ???
Reviewers: reames, fhahn, mkazantsev, chandlerc, craig.topper, courbet
Reviewed By: courbet
Subscribers: miyuki, hiraditya, xbolva00, nikic, jfb, gchatelet, courbet, llvm-commits, mclow.lists
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61144
llvm-svn: 374662
Summary:
@mclow.lists brought up this issue up in IRC.
It is a reasonably common problem to compare some two values for equality.
Those may be just some integers, strings or arrays of integers.
In C, there is `memcmp()`, `bcmp()` functions.
In C++, there exists `std::equal()` algorithm.
One can also write that function manually.
libstdc++'s `std::equal()` is specialized to directly call `memcmp()` for
various types, but not `std::byte` from C++2a. https://godbolt.org/z/mx2ejJ
libc++ does not do anything like that, it simply relies on simple C++'s
`operator==()`. https://godbolt.org/z/er0Zwf (GOOD!)
So likely, there exists a certain performance opportunities.
Let's compare performance of naive `std::equal()` (no `memcmp()`) with one that
is using `memcmp()` (in this case, compiled with modified compiler). {F8768213}
```
#include <algorithm>
#include <cmath>
#include <cstdint>
#include <iterator>
#include <limits>
#include <random>
#include <type_traits>
#include <utility>
#include <vector>
#include "benchmark/benchmark.h"
template <class T>
bool equal(T* a, T* a_end, T* b) noexcept {
for (; a != a_end; ++a, ++b) {
if (*a != *b) return false;
}
return true;
}
template <typename T>
std::vector<T> getVectorOfRandomNumbers(size_t count) {
std::random_device rd;
std::mt19937 gen(rd());
std::uniform_int_distribution<T> dis(std::numeric_limits<T>::min(),
std::numeric_limits<T>::max());
std::vector<T> v;
v.reserve(count);
std::generate_n(std::back_inserter(v), count,
[&dis, &gen]() { return dis(gen); });
assert(v.size() == count);
return v;
}
struct Identical {
template <typename T>
static std::pair<std::vector<T>, std::vector<T>> Gen(size_t count) {
auto Tmp = getVectorOfRandomNumbers<T>(count);
return std::make_pair(Tmp, std::move(Tmp));
}
};
struct InequalHalfway {
template <typename T>
static std::pair<std::vector<T>, std::vector<T>> Gen(size_t count) {
auto V0 = getVectorOfRandomNumbers<T>(count);
auto V1 = V0;
V1[V1.size() / size_t(2)]++; // just change the value.
return std::make_pair(std::move(V0), std::move(V1));
}
};
template <class T, class Gen>
void BM_bcmp(benchmark::State& state) {
const size_t Length = state.range(0);
const std::pair<std::vector<T>, std::vector<T>> Data =
Gen::template Gen<T>(Length);
const std::vector<T>& a = Data.first;
const std::vector<T>& b = Data.second;
assert(a.size() == Length && b.size() == a.size());
benchmark::ClobberMemory();
benchmark::DoNotOptimize(a);
benchmark::DoNotOptimize(a.data());
benchmark::DoNotOptimize(b);
benchmark::DoNotOptimize(b.data());
for (auto _ : state) {
const bool is_equal = equal(a.data(), a.data() + a.size(), b.data());
benchmark::DoNotOptimize(is_equal);
}
state.SetComplexityN(Length);
state.counters["eltcnt"] =
benchmark::Counter(Length, benchmark::Counter::kIsIterationInvariant);
state.counters["eltcnt/sec"] =
benchmark::Counter(Length, benchmark::Counter::kIsIterationInvariantRate);
const size_t BytesRead = 2 * sizeof(T) * Length;
state.counters["bytes_read/iteration"] =
benchmark::Counter(BytesRead, benchmark::Counter::kDefaults,
benchmark::Counter::OneK::kIs1024);
state.counters["bytes_read/sec"] = benchmark::Counter(
BytesRead, benchmark::Counter::kIsIterationInvariantRate,
benchmark::Counter::OneK::kIs1024);
}
template <typename T>
static void CustomArguments(benchmark::internal::Benchmark* b) {
const size_t L2SizeBytes = []() {
for (const benchmark::CPUInfo::CacheInfo& I :
benchmark::CPUInfo::Get().caches) {
if (I.level == 2) return I.size;
}
return 0;
}();
// What is the largest range we can check to always fit within given L2 cache?
const size_t MaxLen = L2SizeBytes / /*total bufs*/ 2 /
/*maximal elt size*/ sizeof(T) / /*safety margin*/ 2;
b->RangeMultiplier(2)->Range(1, MaxLen)->Complexity(benchmark::oN);
}
BENCHMARK_TEMPLATE(BM_bcmp, uint8_t, Identical)
->Apply(CustomArguments<uint8_t>);
BENCHMARK_TEMPLATE(BM_bcmp, uint16_t, Identical)
->Apply(CustomArguments<uint16_t>);
BENCHMARK_TEMPLATE(BM_bcmp, uint32_t, Identical)
->Apply(CustomArguments<uint32_t>);
BENCHMARK_TEMPLATE(BM_bcmp, uint64_t, Identical)
->Apply(CustomArguments<uint64_t>);
BENCHMARK_TEMPLATE(BM_bcmp, uint8_t, InequalHalfway)
->Apply(CustomArguments<uint8_t>);
BENCHMARK_TEMPLATE(BM_bcmp, uint16_t, InequalHalfway)
->Apply(CustomArguments<uint16_t>);
BENCHMARK_TEMPLATE(BM_bcmp, uint32_t, InequalHalfway)
->Apply(CustomArguments<uint32_t>);
BENCHMARK_TEMPLATE(BM_bcmp, uint64_t, InequalHalfway)
->Apply(CustomArguments<uint64_t>);
```
{F8768210}
```
$ ~/src/googlebenchmark/tools/compare.py --no-utest benchmarks build-{old,new}/test/llvm-bcmp-bench
RUNNING: build-old/test/llvm-bcmp-bench --benchmark_out=/tmp/tmpb6PEUx
2019-04-25 21:17:11
Running build-old/test/llvm-bcmp-bench
Run on (8 X 4000 MHz CPU s)
CPU Caches:
L1 Data 16K (x8)
L1 Instruction 64K (x4)
L2 Unified 2048K (x4)
L3 Unified 8192K (x1)
Load Average: 0.65, 3.90, 4.14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark Time CPU Iterations UserCounters...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, Identical>/512000 432131 ns 432101 ns 1613 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=2.20706G/s eltcnt=825.856M eltcnt/sec=1.18491G/s
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, Identical>_BigO 0.86 N 0.86 N
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, Identical>_RMS 8 % 8 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, Identical>/256000 161408 ns 161409 ns 4027 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=5.90843G/s eltcnt=1030.91M eltcnt/sec=1.58603G/s
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, Identical>_BigO 0.67 N 0.67 N
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, Identical>_RMS 25 % 25 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, Identical>/128000 81497 ns 81488 ns 8415 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=11.7032G/s eltcnt=1077.12M eltcnt/sec=1.57078G/s
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, Identical>_BigO 0.71 N 0.71 N
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, Identical>_RMS 42 % 42 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, Identical>/64000 50138 ns 50138 ns 10909 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=19.0209G/s eltcnt=698.176M eltcnt/sec=1.27647G/s
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, Identical>_BigO 0.84 N 0.84 N
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, Identical>_RMS 27 % 27 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, InequalHalfway>/512000 192405 ns 192392 ns 3638 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=4.95694G/s eltcnt=1.86266G eltcnt/sec=2.66124G/s
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, InequalHalfway>_BigO 0.38 N 0.38 N
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, InequalHalfway>_RMS 3 % 3 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, InequalHalfway>/256000 127858 ns 127860 ns 5477 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=7.45873G/s eltcnt=1.40211G eltcnt/sec=2.00219G/s
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, InequalHalfway>_BigO 0.50 N 0.50 N
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, InequalHalfway>_RMS 0 % 0 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, InequalHalfway>/128000 49140 ns 49140 ns 14281 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=19.4072G/s eltcnt=1.82797G eltcnt/sec=2.60478G/s
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, InequalHalfway>_BigO 0.40 N 0.40 N
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, InequalHalfway>_RMS 18 % 18 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, InequalHalfway>/64000 32101 ns 32099 ns 21786 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=29.7101G/s eltcnt=1.3943G eltcnt/sec=1.99381G/s
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, InequalHalfway>_BigO 0.50 N 0.50 N
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, InequalHalfway>_RMS 1 % 1 %
RUNNING: build-new/test/llvm-bcmp-bench --benchmark_out=/tmp/tmpQ46PP0
2019-04-25 21:19:29
Running build-new/test/llvm-bcmp-bench
Run on (8 X 4000 MHz CPU s)
CPU Caches:
L1 Data 16K (x8)
L1 Instruction 64K (x4)
L2 Unified 2048K (x4)
L3 Unified 8192K (x1)
Load Average: 1.01, 2.85, 3.71
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark Time CPU Iterations UserCounters...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, Identical>/512000 18593 ns 18590 ns 37565 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=51.2991G/s eltcnt=19.2333G eltcnt/sec=27.541G/s
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, Identical>_BigO 0.04 N 0.04 N
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, Identical>_RMS 37 % 37 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, Identical>/256000 18950 ns 18948 ns 37223 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=50.3324G/s eltcnt=9.52909G eltcnt/sec=13.511G/s
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, Identical>_BigO 0.08 N 0.08 N
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, Identical>_RMS 34 % 34 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, Identical>/128000 18627 ns 18627 ns 37895 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=51.198G/s eltcnt=4.85056G eltcnt/sec=6.87168G/s
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, Identical>_BigO 0.16 N 0.16 N
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, Identical>_RMS 35 % 35 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, Identical>/64000 18855 ns 18855 ns 37458 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=50.5791G/s eltcnt=2.39731G eltcnt/sec=3.3943G/s
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, Identical>_BigO 0.32 N 0.32 N
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, Identical>_RMS 33 % 33 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, InequalHalfway>/512000 9570 ns 9569 ns 73500 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=99.6601G/s eltcnt=37.632G eltcnt/sec=53.5046G/s
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, InequalHalfway>_BigO 0.02 N 0.02 N
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, InequalHalfway>_RMS 29 % 29 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, InequalHalfway>/256000 9547 ns 9547 ns 74343 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=99.8971G/s eltcnt=19.0318G eltcnt/sec=26.8159G/s
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, InequalHalfway>_BigO 0.04 N 0.04 N
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, InequalHalfway>_RMS 29 % 29 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, InequalHalfway>/128000 9396 ns 9394 ns 73521 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=101.518G/s eltcnt=9.41069G eltcnt/sec=13.6255G/s
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, InequalHalfway>_BigO 0.08 N 0.08 N
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, InequalHalfway>_RMS 30 % 30 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, InequalHalfway>/64000 9499 ns 9498 ns 73802 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=100.405G/s eltcnt=4.72333G eltcnt/sec=6.73808G/s
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, InequalHalfway>_BigO 0.16 N 0.16 N
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, InequalHalfway>_RMS 28 % 28 %
Comparing build-old/test/llvm-bcmp-bench to build-new/test/llvm-bcmp-bench
Benchmark Time CPU Time Old Time New CPU Old CPU New
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, Identical>/512000 -0.9570 -0.9570 432131 18593 432101 18590
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, Identical>/256000 -0.8826 -0.8826 161408 18950 161409 18948
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, Identical>/128000 -0.7714 -0.7714 81497 18627 81488 18627
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, Identical>/64000 -0.6239 -0.6239 50138 18855 50138 18855
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, InequalHalfway>/512000 -0.9503 -0.9503 192405 9570 192392 9569
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, InequalHalfway>/256000 -0.9253 -0.9253 127858 9547 127860 9547
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, InequalHalfway>/128000 -0.8088 -0.8088 49140 9396 49140 9394
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, InequalHalfway>/64000 -0.7041 -0.7041 32101 9499 32099 9498
```
What can we tell from the benchmark?
* Performance of naive equality check somewhat improves with element size,
maxing out at eltcnt/sec=1.58603G/s for uint16_t, or bytes_read/sec=19.0209G/s
for uint64_t. I think, that instability implies performance problems.
* Performance of `memcmp()`-aware benchmark always maxes out at around
bytes_read/sec=51.2991G/s for every type. That is 2.6x the throughput of the
naive variant!
* eltcnt/sec metric for the `memcmp()`-aware benchmark maxes out at
eltcnt/sec=27.541G/s for uint8_t (was: eltcnt/sec=1.18491G/s, so 24x) and
linearly decreases with element size.
For uint64_t, it's ~4x+ the elements/second.
* The call obvious is more pricey than the loop, with small element count.
As it can be seen from the full output {F8768210}, the `memcmp()` is almost
universally worse, independent of the element size (and thus buffer size) when
element count is less than 8.
So all in all, bcmp idiom does indeed pose untapped performance headroom.
This diff does implement said idiom recognition. I think a reasonable test
coverage is present, but do tell if there is anything obvious missing.
Now, quality. This does succeed to build and pass the test-suite, at least
without any non-bundled elements. {F8768216} {F8768217}
This transform fires 91 times:
```
$ /build/test-suite/utils/compare.py -m loop-idiom.NumBCmp result-new.json
Tests: 1149
Metric: loop-idiom.NumBCmp
Program result-new
MultiSourc...Benchmarks/7zip/7zip-benchmark 79.00
MultiSource/Applications/d/make_dparser 3.00
SingleSource/UnitTests/vla 2.00
MultiSource/Applications/Burg/burg 1.00
MultiSourc.../Applications/JM/lencod/lencod 1.00
MultiSource/Applications/lemon/lemon 1.00
MultiSource/Benchmarks/Bullet/bullet 1.00
MultiSourc...e/Benchmarks/MallocBench/gs/gs 1.00
MultiSourc...gs-C/TimberWolfMC/timberwolfmc 1.00
MultiSourc...Prolangs-C/simulator/simulator 1.00
```
The size changes are:
I'm not sure what's going on with SingleSource/UnitTests/vla.test yet, did not look.
```
$ /build/test-suite/utils/compare.py -m size..text result-{old,new}.json --filter-hash
Tests: 1149
Same hash: 907 (filtered out)
Remaining: 242
Metric: size..text
Program result-old result-new diff
test-suite...ingleSource/UnitTests/vla.test 753.00 833.00 10.6%
test-suite...marks/7zip/7zip-benchmark.test 1001697.00 966657.00 -3.5%
test-suite...ngs-C/simulator/simulator.test 32369.00 32321.00 -0.1%
test-suite...plications/d/make_dparser.test 89585.00 89505.00 -0.1%
test-suite...ce/Applications/Burg/burg.test 40817.00 40785.00 -0.1%
test-suite.../Applications/lemon/lemon.test 47281.00 47249.00 -0.1%
test-suite...TimberWolfMC/timberwolfmc.test 250065.00 250113.00 0.0%
test-suite...chmarks/MallocBench/gs/gs.test 149889.00 149873.00 -0.0%
test-suite...ications/JM/lencod/lencod.test 769585.00 769569.00 -0.0%
test-suite.../Benchmarks/Bullet/bullet.test 770049.00 770049.00 0.0%
test-suite...HMARK_ANISTROPIC_DIFFUSION/128 NaN NaN nan%
test-suite...HMARK_ANISTROPIC_DIFFUSION/256 NaN NaN nan%
test-suite...CHMARK_ANISTROPIC_DIFFUSION/64 NaN NaN nan%
test-suite...CHMARK_ANISTROPIC_DIFFUSION/32 NaN NaN nan%
test-suite...ENCHMARK_BILATERAL_FILTER/64/4 NaN NaN nan%
Geomean difference nan%
result-old result-new diff
count 1.000000e+01 10.00000 10.000000
mean 3.152090e+05 311695.40000 0.006749
std 3.790398e+05 372091.42232 0.036605
min 7.530000e+02 833.00000 -0.034981
25% 4.243300e+04 42401.00000 -0.000866
50% 1.197370e+05 119689.00000 -0.000392
75% 6.397050e+05 639705.00000 -0.000005
max 1.001697e+06 966657.00000 0.106242
```
I don't have timings though.
And now to the code. The basic idea is to completely replace the whole loop.
If we can't fully kill it, don't transform.
I have left one or two comments in the code, so hopefully it can be understood.
Also, there is a few TODO's that i have left for follow-ups:
* widening of `memcmp()`/`bcmp()`
* step smaller than the comparison size
* Metadata propagation
* more than two blocks as long as there is still a single backedge?
* ???
Reviewers: reames, fhahn, mkazantsev, chandlerc, craig.topper, courbet
Reviewed By: courbet
Subscribers: hiraditya, xbolva00, nikic, jfb, gchatelet, courbet, llvm-commits, mclow.lists
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61144
llvm-svn: 370454
This patch adds a function attribute, nofree, to indicate that a function does
not, directly or indirectly, call a memory-deallocation function (e.g., free,
C++'s operator delete).
Reviewers: jdoerfert
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49165
llvm-svn: 365336
Summary:
Bug: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39024
The bug reports that a vectorized loop is stepped through 4 times and each step through the loop seemed to show a different path. I found two problems here:
A) An incorrect line number on a preheader block (for.body.preheader) instruction causes a step into the loop before it begins.
B) Instructions in the middle block have different line numbers which give the impression of another iteration.
In this patch I give all of the middle block instructions the line number of the scalar loop latch terminator branch. This seems to provide the smoothest debugging experience because the vectorized loops will always end on this line before dropping into the scalar loop. To solve problem A I have altered llvm::SplitBlockPredecessors to accommodate loop header blocks.
I have set up a separate review D61933 for a fix which is required for this patch.
Reviewers: samsonov, vsk, aprantl, probinson, anemet, hfinkel, jmorse
Reviewed By: hfinkel, jmorse
Subscribers: jmorse, javed.absar, eraman, kcc, bjope, jmellorcrummey, hfinkel, gbedwell, hiraditya, zzheng, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm, #debug-info
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60831
> llvm-svn: 363046
llvm-svn: 363786
Second functional change following on from rL362687. Pass the
NoWrapFlags from the MulExpr to InsertBinop when we're generating a
shl or mul.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61934
llvm-svn: 363540
Summary:
Bug: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39024
The bug reports that a vectorized loop is stepped through 4 times and each step through the loop seemed to show a different path. I found two problems here:
A) An incorrect line number on a preheader block (for.body.preheader) instruction causes a step into the loop before it begins.
B) Instructions in the middle block have different line numbers which give the impression of another iteration.
In this patch I give all of the middle block instructions the line number of the scalar loop latch terminator branch. This seems to provide the smoothest debugging experience because the vectorized loops will always end on this line before dropping into the scalar loop. To solve problem A I have altered llvm::SplitBlockPredecessors to accommodate loop header blocks.
I have set up a separate review D61933 for a fix which is required for this patch.
Reviewers: samsonov, vsk, aprantl, probinson, anemet, hfinkel, jmorse
Reviewed By: hfinkel, jmorse
Subscribers: jmorse, javed.absar, eraman, kcc, bjope, jmellorcrummey, hfinkel, gbedwell, hiraditya, zzheng, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm, #debug-info
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60831
llvm-svn: 363046
If the given SCEVExpr has no (un)signed flags attached to it, transfer
these to the resulting instruction or use them to find an existing
instruction.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61934
llvm-svn: 362687
Summary:
I'm adding ORE to memset/memcpy formation, with tests,
but mainly this is split off from D61144.
Reviewers: reames, anemet, thegameg, craig.topper
Reviewed By: thegameg
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62631
llvm-svn: 362092
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
Summary:
Existing LIR recognizes CTLZ where shifting input variable right until it is zero. (Shift-Until-Zero idiom)
This commit:
1. Augments Shift-Until-Zero idiom to recognize CTTZ where input variable is shifted left.
2. Prepare for BitScan idiom recognition.
Patch by Yuanfang Chen (tabloid.adroit)
Reviewers: craig.topper, evstupac
Reviewed By: craig.topper
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55876
llvm-svn: 350074
Summary:
LoopSimplifyCFG should update ScEv for all loops after a block is deleted.
If the deleted block "Succ" is part of L, then it is part of all parent loops, so forget topmost loop.
Reviewers: greened, mkazantsev, sanjoy
Subscribers: jlebar, javed.absar, uabelho, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50422
llvm-svn: 339363
This commit suppresses turning loops like this into "(bitwidth - ctlz(input))".
unsigned foo(unsigned input) {
unsigned num = 0;
do {
++num;
input >>= 1;
} while (input != 0);
return num;
}
The loop version returns a value of 1 for both an input of 0 and an input of 1. Converting to a naive ctlz does not preserve that.
Theoretically we could do better if we checked isKnownNonZero or we could insert a select to handle the divergence. But until we have motivating cases for that, this is the easiest solution.
llvm-svn: 336864
This loop executes one iteration without checking the input value. This produces a count of 1 for an input of 0 and 1. We are turning this into 32 - ctlz(n), but that returns 0 if n is 0.
llvm-svn: 336862
Summary:
Support for this option is needed for building Linux kernel.
This is a very frequently requested feature by kernel developers.
More details : https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/4/4/601
GCC option description for -fdelete-null-pointer-checks:
This Assume that programs cannot safely dereference null pointers,
and that no code or data element resides at address zero.
-fno-delete-null-pointer-checks is the inverse of this implying that
null pointer dereferencing is not undefined.
This feature is implemented in LLVM IR in this CL as the function attribute
"null-pointer-is-valid"="true" in IR (Under review at D47894).
The CL updates several passes that assumed null pointer dereferencing is
undefined to not optimize when the "null-pointer-is-valid"="true"
attribute is present.
Reviewers: t.p.northover, efriedma, jyknight, chandlerc, rnk, srhines, void, george.burgess.iv
Reviewed By: efriedma, george.burgess.iv
Subscribers: eraman, haicheng, george.burgess.iv, drinkcat, theraven, reames, sanjoy, xbolva00, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47895
llvm-svn: 336613
In the 'detectCTLZIdiom' function support for loops that use LSHR instruction instead of ASHR has been added.
This supports creating ctlz from the following code.
int lzcnt(int x) {
int count = 0;
while (x > 0) {
count++;
x = x >> 1;
}
return count;
}
Patch by Olga Moldovanova
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48354
llvm-svn: 336509
When checking a select to see if it matches an abs, allow the true/false values
to be a sign-extension of the comparison value instead of requiring that they're
directly the comparison value, as all the comparison cares about is the sign of
the value.
This fixes a regression due to r333702, where we were no longer generating ctlz
due to isKnownNonNegative failing to match such a pattern.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47631
llvm-svn: 333927
Summary:
Loop idiom recognize tries to convert loops like
```
int foo(int x) {
int cnt = 0;
while (x) {
x >>= 1;
++cnt;
}
return cnt;
}
```
into calls to ctlz, but if x is initially negative this loop should be infinite.
It happens that the cases that motivated this change have an absolute value of x before the loop. So this patch restricts the transform to cases where we know x is positive. Note: We are relying on the absolute value of INT_MIN to be undefined so we can assume that the result is always positive.
Fixes PR37479
Reviewers: spatel, hfinkel, efriedma, javed.absar
Reviewed By: efriedma
Subscribers: dmgreen, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47348
llvm-svn: 333702
We currently recognize this idiom where x is signed and thus the shift in an ashr.
int cnt = 0;
while (x) {
x >>= 1; // arithmetic shift right
++cnt;
}
and turn it into (bitwidth - ctlz(x)). And if there is anything else in the loop we will create a new loop that runs that many times.
If x is initially negative, the shift result will never be 0 and thus the loop is infinite. If you put something with side effects in the loop, that side effect will now only happen bitwidth times instead of an infinite number of times.
So this transform is only safe for logical shift right (which we don't currently recognize) or if we can prove that x cannot be negative before the loop.
llvm-svn: 331493
The code fails to check that the same value is used twice. We only make sure the left hand side of the and is part of the loop recurrence. The 'x' in the subtract can be any value.
llvm-svn: 331436
Making a width of GEP Index, which is used for address calculation, to be one of the pointer properties in the Data Layout.
p[address space]:size:memory_size:alignment:pref_alignment:index_size_in_bits.
The index size parameter is optional, if not specified, it is equal to the pointer size.
Till now, the InstCombiner normalized GEPs and extended the Index operand to the pointer width.
It works fine if you can convert pointer to integer for address calculation and all registered targets do this.
But some ISAs have very restricted instruction set for the pointer calculation. During discussions were desided to retrieve information for GEP index from the Data Layout.
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-January/120416.html
I added an interface to the Data Layout and I changed the InstCombiner and some other passes to take the Index width into account.
This change does not affect any in-tree target. I added tests to cover data layouts with explicitly specified index size.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42123
llvm-svn: 325102
Summary:
This change is part of step five in the series of changes to remove alignment argument from
memcpy/memmove/memset in favour of alignment attributes. In particular, this changes the
LoopIdiom pass to cease using the old IRBuilder CreateMemCpy single-alignment APIs in
favour of the new API that allows setting source and destination alignments independently.
This allows us to be slightly more aggressive in setting the alignment of memcpy calls that
loop idiom creates.
Steps:
Step 1) Remove alignment parameter and create alignment parameter attributes for
memcpy/memmove/memset. ( rL322965, rC322964, rL322963 )
Step 2) Expand the IRBuilder API to allow creation of memcpy/memmove with differing
source and dest alignments. ( rL323597 )
Step 3) Update Clang to use the new IRBuilder API. ( rC323617 )
Step 4) Update Polly to use the new IRBuilder API. ( rL323618 )
Step 5) Update LLVM passes that create memcpy/memmove calls to use the new IRBuilder API,
and those that use use MemIntrinsicInst::[get|set]Alignment() to use [get|set]DestAlignment()
and [get|set]SourceAlignment() instead. ( rL323886, rL323891, rL324148, rL324273, rL324278,
rL324384, rL324395, rL324402 )
Step 6) Remove the single-alignment IRBuilder API for memcpy/memmove, and the
MemIntrinsicInst::[get|set]Alignment() methods.
Reference
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-August/089384.htmlhttp://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20151109/312083.html
llvm-svn: 324626
This patch implements Chandler's idea [0] for supporting languages that
require support for infinite loops with side effects, such as Rust, providing
part of a solution to bug 965 [1].
Specifically, it adds an `llvm.sideeffect()` intrinsic, which has no actual
effect, but which appears to optimization passes to have obscure side effects,
such that they don't optimize away loops containing it. It also teaches
several optimization passes to ignore this intrinsic, so that it doesn't
significantly impact optimization in most cases.
As discussed on llvm-dev [2], this patch is the first of two major parts.
The second part, to change LLVM's semantics to have defined behavior
on infinite loops by default, with a function attribute for opting into
potential-undefined-behavior, will be implemented and posted for review in
a separate patch.
[0] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-July/088103.html
[1] https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=965
[2] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-October/118632.html
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38336
llvm-svn: 317729
There is no situation where this rarely-used argument cannot be
substituted with a DIExpression and removing it allows us to simplify
the DWARF backend. Note that this patch does not yet remove any of
the newly dead code.
rdar://problem/33580047
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35951
llvm-svn: 309426
it when safe.
Very often the BE count is the trip count minus one, and the plus one
here should fold with that minus one. But because the BE count might in
theory be UINT_MAX or some such, adding one before we extend could in
some cases wrap to zero and break when we scale things.
This patch checks to see if it would be safe to add one because the
specific case that would cause this is guarded for prior to entering the
preheader. This should handle essentially all of the common loop idioms
coming out of C/C++ code once canonicalized by LLVM.
Before this patch, both forms of loop in the added test cases ended up
subtracting one from the size, extending it, scaling it up by 8 and then
adding 8 back onto it. This is really silly, and it turns out made it
all the way into generated code very often, so this is a surprisingly
important cleanup to do.
Many thanks to Sanjoy for showing me how to do this with SCEV.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35758
llvm-svn: 308968
Summary:
Background: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-May/112779.html
This change is to alter the prototype for the atomic memcpy intrinsic. The prototype itself is being changed to more closely resemble the semantics and parameters of the llvm.memcpy intrinsic -- to ease later combination of the llvm.memcpy and atomic memcpy intrinsics. Furthermore, the name of the atomic memcpy intrinsic is being changed to make it clear that it is not a generic atomic memcpy, but specifically a memcpy is unordered atomic.
Reviewers: reames, sanjoy, efriedma
Reviewed By: reames
Subscribers: mzolotukhin, anna, llvm-commits, skatkov
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33240
llvm-svn: 305558
Patch https://reviews.llvm.org/rL304806 was causing failures in Aarch64
and multiple other targets since the test should be run on X86 only.
Specifying the target triple is not enough. Moving the testcase to the
X86 target directory in LoopIdiom.
llvm-svn: 304809
Summary:
Expanding the loop idiom test for memcpy to also recognize
unordered atomic memcpy. The only difference for recognizing
an unordered atomic memcpy and instead of a normal memcpy is
that the loads and/or stores involved are unordered atomic operations.
Background: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-May/112779.html
Patch by Daniel Neilson!
Reviewers: reames, anna, skatkov
Reviewed By: reames, anna
Subscribers: llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33243
llvm-svn: 304806
This reverts commit r304310.
It caused build failures in polly and mingw
due to undefined reference to
llvm::RTLIB::getMEMCPY_ELEMENT_ATOMIC.
llvm-svn: 304315
Summary:
Expanding the loop idiom test for memcpy to also recognize unordered atomic memcpy.
The only difference for recognizing
an unordered atomic memcpy and instead of a normal memcpy is
that the loads and/or stores involved are unordered atomic operations.
Background: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-May/112779.html
Patch by Daniel Neilson!
Reviewers: reames, anna, skatkov
Reviewed By: reames
Subscribers: llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33243
llvm-svn: 304310
Summary:
The following loops should be recognized:
i = 0;
while (n) {
n = n >> 1;
i++;
body();
}
use(i);
And replaced with builtin_ctlz(n) if body() is empty or
for CPUs that have CTLZ instruction converted to countable:
for (j = 0; j < builtin_ctlz(n); j++) {
n = n >> 1;
i++;
body();
}
use(builtin_ctlz(n));
Reviewers: rengolin, joerg
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D32605
From: Evgeny Stupachenko <evstupac@gmail.com>
llvm-svn: 303102
Loop Idiom recognition was generating memset in a case that
would result generating a division operation to an unsafe location.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32674
llvm-svn: 302238
Roman Lebedev