Splitting basic blocks into multiple statements if there are now
additional scalar dependencies gives more freedom to the scheduler, but
more statements also means higher compile-time complexity. Switch to
finer statement granularity, the additional compile time should be
limited by the number of operations quota.
The regression tests are written for the -polly-stmt-granularity=bb
setting, therefore we add that flag to those tests that break with the
new default. Some of the tests only fail because the statements are
named differently due to a basic block resulting in multiple statements,
but which are removed during simplification of statements without
side-effects. Previous commits tried to reduce this effect, but it is
not completely avoidable.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42151
llvm-svn: 324169
Summary:
This patch comes directly after https://reviews.llvm.org/D34982 which allows fully indexed expansion of MemoryKind::Array. This patch allows expansion for MemoryKind::Value and MemoryKind::PHI.
MemoryKind::Value seems to be working with no majors modifications of D34982. A test case has been added. Unfortunatly, no "run time" checks can be done for now because as @Meinersbur explains in a comment on D34982, DependenceInfo need to be cleared and reset to take expansion into account in the remaining part of the Polly pipeline. There is no way to do that in Polly for now.
MemoryKind::PHI is not working. Test case is in place, but not working. To expand MemoryKind::Array, we expand first the write and then after the reads. For MemoryKind::PHI, the idea of the current implementation is to exchange the "roles" of the read and write and expand first the read according to its domain and after the writes.
But with this strategy, I still encounter the problem of union_map in new access map.
For example with the following source code (source code of the test case) :
```
void mse(double A[Ni], double B[Nj]) {
int i,j;
double tmp = 6;
for (i = 0; i < Ni; i++) {
for (int j = 0; j<Nj; j++) {
tmp = tmp + 2;
}
B[i] = tmp;
}
}
```
Polly gives us the following statements and memory accesses :
```
Statements {
Stmt_for_body
Domain :=
{ Stmt_for_body[i0] : 0 <= i0 <= 9999 };
Schedule :=
{ Stmt_for_body[i0] -> [i0, 0, 0] };
ReadAccess := [Reduction Type: NONE] [Scalar: 1]
{ Stmt_for_body[i0] -> MemRef_tmp_04__phi[] };
MustWriteAccess := [Reduction Type: NONE] [Scalar: 1]
{ Stmt_for_body[i0] -> MemRef_tmp_11__phi[] };
Instructions {
%tmp.04 = phi double [ 6.000000e+00, %entry.split ], [ %add.lcssa, %for.end ]
}
Stmt_for_inc
Domain :=
{ Stmt_for_inc[i0, i1] : 0 <= i0 <= 9999 and 0 <= i1 <= 9999 };
Schedule :=
{ Stmt_for_inc[i0, i1] -> [i0, 1, i1] };
MustWriteAccess := [Reduction Type: NONE] [Scalar: 1]
{ Stmt_for_inc[i0, i1] -> MemRef_tmp_11__phi[] };
ReadAccess := [Reduction Type: NONE] [Scalar: 1]
{ Stmt_for_inc[i0, i1] -> MemRef_tmp_11__phi[] };
MustWriteAccess := [Reduction Type: NONE] [Scalar: 1]
{ Stmt_for_inc[i0, i1] -> MemRef_add_lcssa__phi[] };
Instructions {
%tmp.11 = phi double [ %tmp.04, %for.body ], [ %add, %for.inc ]
%add = fadd double %tmp.11, 2.000000e+00
%exitcond = icmp ne i32 %inc, 10000
}
Stmt_for_end
Domain :=
{ Stmt_for_end[i0] : 0 <= i0 <= 9999 };
Schedule :=
{ Stmt_for_end[i0] -> [i0, 2, 0] };
MustWriteAccess := [Reduction Type: NONE] [Scalar: 1]
{ Stmt_for_end[i0] -> MemRef_tmp_04__phi[] };
ReadAccess := [Reduction Type: NONE] [Scalar: 1]
{ Stmt_for_end[i0] -> MemRef_add_lcssa__phi[] };
MustWriteAccess := [Reduction Type: NONE] [Scalar: 0]
{ Stmt_for_end[i0] -> MemRef_B[i0] };
Instructions {
%add.lcssa = phi double [ %add, %for.inc ]
store double %add.lcssa, double* %arrayidx, align 8
%exitcond5 = icmp ne i64 %indvars.iv.next, 10000
}
}
```
and the following dependences :
```
{ Stmt_for_inc[i0, 9999] -> Stmt_for_end[i0] : 0 <= i0 <= 9999;
Stmt_for_inc[i0, i1] -> Stmt_for_inc[i0, 1 + i1] : 0 <= i0 <= 9999 and 0 <= i1 <= 9998;
Stmt_for_body[i0] -> Stmt_for_inc[i0, 0] : 0 <= i0 <= 9999;
Stmt_for_end[i0] -> Stmt_for_body[1 + i0] : 0 <= i0 <= 9998 }
```
When trying to expand this memory access :
```
{ Stmt_for_inc[i0, i1] -> MemRef_tmp_11__phi[] };
```
The new access map would look like this :
```
{ Stmt_for_inc[i0, 9999] -> MemRef_tmp_11__phi_exp[i0] : 0 <= i0 <= 9999; Stmt_for_inc[i0, i1] ->MemRef_tmp_11__phi_exp[i0, 1 + i1] : 0 <= i0 <= 9999 and 0 <= i1 <= 9998 }
```
The idea to implement the expansion for PHI access is an idea from @Meinersbur and I don't understand why my implementation does not work. I should have miss something in the understanding of the idea.
Contributed by: Nicolas Bonfante <nicolas.bonfante@gmail.com>
Reviewers: Meinersbur, simbuerg, bollu
Reviewed By: Meinersbur
Subscribers: llvm-commits, pollydev, Meinersbur
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36647
llvm-svn: 311619
Summary:
When trying to expand memory accesses, the current version of Polly uses statement Level dependences. The actual implementation is not working in case of multiple dependences per statement. For example in the following source code :
```
void mse(double A[Ni], double B[Nj], double C[Nj], double D[Nj]) {
int i,j;
for (j = 0; j < Ni; j++) {
for (int i = 0; i<Nj; i++)
S: B[i] = i;
for (int i = 0; i<Nj; i++)
T: D[i] = i;
U: A[j] = B[j];
C[j] = D[j];
}
}
```
The statement U has two dependences with S and T. The current version of polly fails during expansion.
This patch aims to fix this bug. For that, we use Reference Level dependences to be able to filter dependences according to statement and memory ref. The principle of expansion remains the same as before.
We also noticed that we need to bail out if load come after store (at the same position) in same statement. So a check was added to isExpandable.
Contributed by: Nicholas Bonfante <nicolas.bonfante@insa-lyon.fr>
Reviewers: Meinersbur, simbuerg, bollu
Reviewed By: Meinersbur, simbuerg
Subscribers: pollydev, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36791
llvm-svn: 311165
This commit implements the initial version of fully-indexed static
expansion.
```
for(int i = 0; i<Ni; i++)
for(int j = 0; j<Ni; j++)
S: B[j] = j;
T: A[i] = B[i]
```
After the pass, we want this :
```
for(int i = 0; i<Ni; i++)
for(int j = 0; j<Ni; j++)
S: B[i][j] = j;
T: A[i] = B[i][i]
```
For now we bail (fail) in the following cases:
- Scalar access
- Multiple writes per SAI
- MayWrite Access
- Expansion that leads to an access to the original array
Furthermore: We still miss checks for escaping references to the array
base pointers. A future commit will add the missing escape-checks to
stay correct in those cases. The expansion is still locked behind a
CLI-Option and should not yet be used.
Patch contributed by: Nicholas Bonfante <bonfante.nicolas@gmail.com>
Reviewers: simbuerg, Meinersbur, bollu
Reviewed By: Meinersbur
Subscribers: mgorny, llvm-commits, pollydev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34982
llvm-svn: 310304
Michael Kruse