forked from OSchip/llvm-project
ae7f08812e
This pattern happens in clang C++ exception lowering code, on unwind branch.
We end up having a `landingpad` block after each `invoke`, where RAII
cleanup is performed, and the elements of an aggregate `{i8*, i32}`
holding exception info are `extractvalue`'d, and we then branch to common block
that takes extracted `i8*` and `i32` elements (via `phi` nodes),
form a new aggregate, and finally `resume`'s the exception.
The problem is that, if the cleanup block is effectively empty,
it shouldn't be there, there shouldn't be that `landingpad` and `resume`,
said `invoke` should be a `call`.
Indeed, we do that simplification in e.g. SimplifyCFG `SimplifyCFGOpt::simplifyResume()`.
But the thing is, all this extra `extractvalue` + `phi` + `insertvalue` cruft,
while it is pointless, does not look like "empty cleanup block".
So the `SimplifyCFGOpt::simplifyResume()` fails, and the exception is has
higher cost than it could have on unwind branch :S
This doesn't happen *that* often, but it will basically happen once per C++
function with complex CFG that called more than one other function
that isn't known to be `nounwind`.
I think, this is a missing fold in InstCombine, so i've implemented it.
I think, the algorithm/implementation is rather self-explanatory:
1. Find a chain of `insertvalue`'s that fully tell us the initializer of the aggregate.
2. For each element, try to find from which aggregate it was extracted.
If it was extracted from the aggregate with identical type,
from identical element index, great.
3. If all elements were found to have been extracted from the same aggregate,
then we can just use said original source aggregate directly,
instead of re-creating it.
4. If we fail to find said aggregate when looking only in the current block,
we need be PHI-aware - we might have different source aggregate when coming
from each predecessor.
I'm not sure if this already handles everything, and there are some FIXME's,
i'll deal with all that later in followups.
I'd be fine with going with post-commit review here code-wise,
but just in case there are thoughts, i'm posting this.
On RawSpeed, for example, this has the following effect:
```
| statistic name | baseline | proposed | Δ | % | abs(%) |
|---------------------------------------------------|---------:|---------:|------:|--------:|-------:|
| instcombine.NumAggregateReconstructionsSimplified | 0 | 1253 | 1253 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| simplifycfg.NumInvokes | 948 | 1355 | 407 | 42.93% | 42.93% |
| instcount.NumInsertValueInst | 4382 | 3210 | -1172 | -26.75% | 26.75% |
| simplifycfg.NumSinkCommonCode | 574 | 458 | -116 | -20.21% | 20.21% |
| simplifycfg.NumSinkCommonInstrs | 1154 | 921 | -233 | -20.19% | 20.19% |
| instcount.NumExtractValueInst | 29017 | 26397 | -2620 | -9.03% | 9.03% |
| instcombine.NumDeadInst | 166618 | 174705 | 8087 | 4.85% | 4.85% |
| instcount.NumPHIInst | 51526 | 50678 | -848 | -1.65% | 1.65% |
| instcount.NumLandingPadInst | 20865 | 20609 | -256 | -1.23% | 1.23% |
| instcount.NumInvokeInst | 34023 | 33675 | -348 | -1.02% | 1.02% |
| simplifycfg.NumSimpl | 113634 | 114708 | 1074 | 0.95% | 0.95% |
| instcombine.NumSunkInst | 15030 | 14930 | -100 | -0.67% | 0.67% |
| instcount.TotalBlocks | 219544 | 219024 | -520 | -0.24% | 0.24% |
| instcombine.NumCombined | 644562 | 645805 | 1243 | 0.19% | 0.19% |
| instcount.TotalInsts | 2139506 | 2135377 | -4129 | -0.19% | 0.19% |
| instcount.NumBrInst | 156988 | 156821 | -167 | -0.11% | 0.11% |
| instcount.NumCallInst | 1206144 | 1207076 | 932 | 0.08% | 0.08% |
| instcount.NumResumeInst | 5193 | 5190 | -3 | -0.06% | 0.06% |
| asm-printer.EmittedInsts | 948580 | 948299 | -281 | -0.03% | 0.03% |
| instcount.TotalFuncs | 11509 | 11507 | -2 | -0.02% | 0.02% |
| inline.NumDeleted | 97595 | 97597 | 2 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| inline.NumInlined | 210514 | 210522 | 8 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
```
So we manage to increase the amount of `invoke` -> `call` conversions in SimplifyCFG by almost a half,
and there is a very apparent decrease in instruction and basic block count.
On vanilla llvm-test-suite:
```
| statistic name | baseline | proposed | Δ | % | abs(%) |
|---------------------------------------------------|---------:|---------:|------:|--------:|-------:|
| instcombine.NumAggregateReconstructionsSimplified | 0 | 744 | 744 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| instcount.NumInsertValueInst | 2705 | 2053 | -652 | -24.10% | 24.10% |
| simplifycfg.NumInvokes | 1212 | 1424 | 212 | 17.49% | 17.49% |
| instcount.NumExtractValueInst | 21681 | 20139 | -1542 | -7.11% | 7.11% |
| simplifycfg.NumSinkCommonInstrs | 14575 | 14361 | -214 | -1.47% | 1.47% |
| simplifycfg.NumSinkCommonCode | 6815 | 6743 | -72 | -1.06% | 1.06% |
| instcount.NumLandingPadInst | 14851 | 14712 | -139 | -0.94% | 0.94% |
| instcount.NumInvokeInst | 27510 | 27332 | -178 | -0.65% | 0.65% |
| instcombine.NumDeadInst | 1438173 | 1443371 | 5198 | 0.36% | 0.36% |
| instcount.NumResumeInst | 2880 | 2872 | -8 | -0.28% | 0.28% |
| instcombine.NumSunkInst | 55187 | 55076 | -111 | -0.20% | 0.20% |
| instcount.NumPHIInst | 321366 | 320916 | -450 | -0.14% | 0.14% |
| instcount.TotalBlocks | 886816 | 886493 | -323 | -0.04% | 0.04% |
| instcount.TotalInsts | 7663845 | 7661108 | -2737 | -0.04% | 0.04% |
| simplifycfg.NumSimpl | 886791 | 887171 | 380 | 0.04% | 0.04% |
| instcount.NumCallInst | 553552 | 553733 | 181 | 0.03% | 0.03% |
| instcombine.NumCombined | 3200512 | 3201202 | 690 | 0.02% | 0.02% |
| instcount.NumBrInst | 741794 | 741656 | -138 | -0.02% | 0.02% |
| simplifycfg.NumHoistCommonInstrs | 14443 | 14445 | 2 | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| asm-printer.EmittedInsts | 7978085 | 7977916 | -169 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| inline.NumDeleted | 73188 | 73189 | 1 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| inline.NumInlined | 291959 | 291968 | 9 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
```
Roughly similar effect, less instructions and blocks total.
See also: rGe492f0e03b01a5e4ec4b6333abb02d303c3e479e.
Compile-time wise, this appears to be roughly geomean-neutral:
http://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=39617aaed95ac00957979bc1525598c1be80e85e&to=b59866cf30420da8f8e3ca239ed3bec577b23387&stat=instructions
And this is a win size-wize in general:
http://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=39617aaed95ac00957979bc1525598c1be80e85e&to=b59866cf30420da8f8e3ca239ed3bec577b23387&stat=size-text
See https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47060
Reviewed By: spatel
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85787
|
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| INPUTS | ||
| bindings | ||
| cmake | ||
| docs | ||
| examples | ||
| include | ||
| lib | ||
| runtime | ||
| test | ||
| tools | ||
| unittests | ||
| utils | ||
| www | ||
| .clang-format | ||
| .clang-tidy | ||
| .gitignore | ||
| CMakeLists.txt | ||
| CODE_OWNERS.TXT | ||
| INSTALL.txt | ||
| LICENSE.TXT | ||
| ModuleInfo.txt | ||
| NOTES.txt | ||
| README.txt | ||
README.txt
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===// // C Language Family Front-end //===----------------------------------------------------------------------===// Welcome to Clang. This is a compiler front-end for the C family of languages (C, C++, Objective-C, and Objective-C++) which is built as part of the LLVM compiler infrastructure project. Unlike many other compiler frontends, Clang is useful for a number of things beyond just compiling code: we intend for Clang to be host to a number of different source-level tools. One example of this is the Clang Static Analyzer. If you're interested in more (including how to build Clang) it is best to read the relevant web sites. Here are some pointers: Information on Clang: http://clang.llvm.org/ Building and using Clang: http://clang.llvm.org/get_started.html Clang Static Analyzer: http://clang-analyzer.llvm.org/ Information on the LLVM project: http://llvm.org/ If you have questions or comments about Clang, a great place to discuss them is on the Clang development mailing list: http://lists.llvm.org/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev If you find a bug in Clang, please file it in the LLVM bug tracker: http://llvm.org/bugs/