This is effectively an NFC but we can no longer print the index of the
pointer group so instead I print its address. This still lets us
cross-check the section that list the checks against the section that
list the groups (see how I modified the test).
E.g. before we printed this:
Run-time memory checks:
Check 0:
Comparing group 0:
%arrayidxC = getelementptr inbounds i16, i16* %c, i64 %store_ind
%arrayidxC1 = getelementptr inbounds i16, i16* %c, i64 %store_ind_inc
Against group 1:
%arrayidxA = getelementptr i16, i16* %a, i64 %ind
%arrayidxA1 = getelementptr i16, i16* %a, i64 %add
...
Grouped accesses:
Group 0:
(Low: %c High: (78 + %c))
Member: {%c,+,4}<%for.body>
Member: {(2 + %c),+,4}<%for.body>
Now we print this (changes are underlined):
Run-time memory checks:
Check 0:
Comparing group (0x7f9c6040c320):
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
%arrayidxC1 = getelementptr inbounds i16, i16* %c, i64 %store_ind_inc
%arrayidxC = getelementptr inbounds i16, i16* %c, i64 %store_ind
Against group (0x7f9c6040c358):
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
%arrayidxA1 = getelementptr i16, i16* %a, i64 %add
%arrayidxA = getelementptr i16, i16* %a, i64 %ind
...
Grouped accesses:
Group 0x7f9c6040c320:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(Low: %c High: (78 + %c))
Member: {(2 + %c),+,4}<%for.body>
Member: {%c,+,4}<%for.body>
llvm-svn: 243354
Summary:
The iteration order within a member of DepCands is deterministic
and therefore we don't have to sort the accesses within a member.
We also don't have to copy the indices of the pointers into a
vector, since we can iterate over the members of the class.
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D11145
llvm-svn: 242033
Summary:
We were missing a corner case where DepCands was not available,
but we were using DepCands to compute the checking pointer
groups.
This adds a test for that regression.
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D11068
llvm-svn: 241818
Summary:
The checking pointer group construction algorithm relied on the iteration on DepCands.
We would need the same leaders across runs and the same iteration order over the underlying std::set for determinism.
This changes the algorithm to process the pointers in the order in which they were added to the runtime check, which is deterministic.
We need to update the tests, since the order in which pointers appear has changed.
No new tests were added, since it is impossible to test for non-determinism.
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D11064
llvm-svn: 241809
Summary:
Often filter-like loops will do memory accesses that are
separated by constant offsets. In these cases it is
common that we will exceed the threshold for the
allowable number of checks.
However, it should be possible to merge such checks,
sice a check of any interval againt two other intervals separated
by a constant offset (a,b), (a+c, b+c) will be equivalent with
a check againt (a, b+c), as long as (a,b) and (a+c, b+c) overlap.
Assuming the loop will be executed for a sufficient number of
iterations, this will be true. If not true, checking against
(a, b+c) is still safe (although not equivalent).
As long as there are no dependencies between two accesses,
we can merge their checks into a single one. We use this
technique to construct groups of accesses, and then check
the intervals associated with the groups instead of
checking the accesses directly.
Reviewers: anemet
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D10386
llvm-svn: 241673
Summary:
We need to add a runtime memcheck for pair of accesses (x,y) where at least one of x and y
are writes.
Assuming we have w writes and r reads, currently this number is estimated as being
w* (w+r-1). This estimation will count (write,write) pairs twice and will overestimate
the number of checks required.
This change adds a getNumberOfChecks method to RuntimePointerCheck, which
will count the number of runtime checks needed (similar in implementation to
needsAnyChecking) and uses it to produce the correct number of runtime checks.
Test Plan:
llvm test suite
spec2k
spec2k6
Performance results: no changes observed (not surprising since the formula for 1 writer is basically the same, which would covers most cases - at least with the current check limit).
Reviewers: anemet
Reviewed By: anemet
Subscribers: mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D10217
llvm-svn: 239295
Silviu Baranga