[all-commits] [llvm/llvm-project] 01f999: [SCCP] Switch to widen at PHIs, stores and call ed...
Florian Hahn via All-commits
all-commits at lists.llvm.org
Fri May 29 04:00:10 PDT 2020
Branch: refs/heads/master
Home: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project
Commit: 01f999ae8871544ab4996fd1368c0dfe4c4a0765
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/01f999ae8871544ab4996fd1368c0dfe4c4a0765
Author: Florian Hahn <flo at fhahn.com>
Date: 2020-05-29 (Fri, 29 May 2020)
Changed paths:
M llvm/include/llvm/Analysis/ValueLattice.h
M llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/SCCP.cpp
M llvm/test/Transforms/SCCP/constant-range-struct.ll
A llvm/test/Transforms/SCCP/ipsccp-cycles.ll
M llvm/test/Transforms/SCCP/resolvedundefsin-tracked-fn.ll
M llvm/test/Transforms/SCCP/widening.ll
Log Message:
-----------
[SCCP] Switch to widen at PHIs, stores and call edges.
Currently SCCP does not widen PHIs, stores or along call edges
(arguments/return values), but on operations that directly extend ranges
(like binary operators).
This means PHIs, stores and call edges are not pessimized by widening
currently, while binary operators are. The main reason for widening
operators initially was that opting-out for certain operations was
more straight-forward in the initial implementation (and it did not
matter too much, as range support initially was only implemented for a
very limited set of operations.
During the discussion in D78391, it was suggested to consider flipping
widening to PHIs, stores and along call edges. After adding support for
tracking the number of range extensions in ValueLattice, limiting the
number of range extensions per value is straight forward.
This patch introduces a MaxWidenSteps option to the MergeOptions,
limiting the number of range extensions per value. For PHIs, it seems
natural allow an extension for each (active) incoming value plus 1. For
the other cases, a arbitrary limit of 10 has been chosen initially. It would
potentially make sense to set it depending on the users of a
function/global, but that still needs investigating. This potentially
leads to more state-changes and longer compile-times.
The results look quite promising (MultiSource, SPEC):
Same hash: 179 (filtered out)
Remaining: 58
Metric: sccp.IPNumInstRemoved
Program base widen-phi diff
test-suite...ks/Prolangs-C/agrep/agrep.test 58.00 82.00 41.4%
test-suite...marks/SciMark2-C/scimark2.test 32.00 43.00 34.4%
test-suite...rks/FreeBench/mason/mason.test 6.00 8.00 33.3%
test-suite...langs-C/football/football.test 104.00 128.00 23.1%
test-suite...cations/hexxagon/hexxagon.test 36.00 42.00 16.7%
test-suite...CFP2000/177.mesa/177.mesa.test 214.00 249.00 16.4%
test-suite...ngs-C/assembler/assembler.test 14.00 16.00 14.3%
test-suite...arks/VersaBench/dbms/dbms.test 10.00 11.00 10.0%
test-suite...oxyApps-C++/miniFE/miniFE.test 43.00 47.00 9.3%
test-suite...ications/JM/ldecod/ldecod.test 179.00 195.00 8.9%
test-suite...CFP2006/433.milc/433.milc.test 249.00 265.00 6.4%
test-suite.../CINT2000/175.vpr/175.vpr.test 98.00 104.00 6.1%
test-suite...peg2/mpeg2dec/mpeg2decode.test 70.00 74.00 5.7%
test-suite...CFP2000/188.ammp/188.ammp.test 71.00 75.00 5.6%
test-suite...ce/Benchmarks/PAQ8p/paq8p.test 111.00 117.00 5.4%
test-suite...ce/Applications/Burg/burg.test 41.00 43.00 4.9%
test-suite...000/197.parser/197.parser.test 66.00 69.00 4.5%
test-suite...tions/lambda-0.1.3/lambda.test 23.00 24.00 4.3%
test-suite...urce/Applications/lua/lua.test 301.00 313.00 4.0%
test-suite...TimberWolfMC/timberwolfmc.test 76.00 79.00 3.9%
test-suite...lications/ClamAV/clamscan.test 991.00 1030.00 3.9%
test-suite...plications/d/make_dparser.test 53.00 55.00 3.8%
test-suite...fice-ispell/office-ispell.test 83.00 86.00 3.6%
test-suite...lications/obsequi/Obsequi.test 28.00 29.00 3.6%
test-suite.../Prolangs-C/bison/mybison.test 56.00 58.00 3.6%
test-suite.../CINT2000/254.gap/254.gap.test 170.00 176.00 3.5%
test-suite.../Applications/lemon/lemon.test 30.00 31.00 3.3%
test-suite.../CINT2000/176.gcc/176.gcc.test 1202.00 1240.00 3.2%
test-suite...pplications/treecc/treecc.test 79.00 81.00 2.5%
test-suite...chmarks/MallocBench/gs/gs.test 357.00 366.00 2.5%
test-suite...eeBench/analyzer/analyzer.test 103.00 105.00 1.9%
test-suite...T2006/445.gobmk/445.gobmk.test 1697.00 1724.00 1.6%
test-suite...006/453.povray/453.povray.test 1812.00 1839.00 1.5%
test-suite.../Benchmarks/Bullet/bullet.test 337.00 342.00 1.5%
test-suite.../CINT2000/252.eon/252.eon.test 426.00 432.00 1.4%
test-suite...T2000/300.twolf/300.twolf.test 214.00 217.00 1.4%
test-suite...pplications/oggenc/oggenc.test 244.00 247.00 1.2%
test-suite.../CINT2006/403.gcc/403.gcc.test 4008.00 4055.00 1.2%
test-suite...T2006/456.hmmer/456.hmmer.test 175.00 177.00 1.1%
test-suite...nal/skidmarks10/skidmarks.test 430.00 434.00 0.9%
test-suite.../Applications/sgefa/sgefa.test 115.00 116.00 0.9%
test-suite...006/447.dealII/447.dealII.test 1082.00 1091.00 0.8%
test-suite...6/482.sphinx3/482.sphinx3.test 141.00 142.00 0.7%
test-suite...ocBench/espresso/espresso.test 152.00 153.00 0.7%
test-suite...3.xalancbmk/483.xalancbmk.test 4003.00 4025.00 0.5%
test-suite...lications/sqlite3/sqlite3.test 548.00 551.00 0.5%
test-suite...marks/7zip/7zip-benchmark.test 5522.00 5551.00 0.5%
test-suite...nsumer-lame/consumer-lame.test 208.00 209.00 0.5%
test-suite...:: External/Povray/povray.test 1556.00 1563.00 0.4%
test-suite...000/186.crafty/186.crafty.test 298.00 299.00 0.3%
test-suite.../Applications/SPASS/SPASS.test 2019.00 2025.00 0.3%
test-suite...ications/JM/lencod/lencod.test 8427.00 8449.00 0.3%
test-suite...6/464.h264ref/464.h264ref.test 6797.00 6813.00 0.2%
test-suite...6/471.omnetpp/471.omnetpp.test 431.00 430.00 -0.2%
test-suite...006/450.soplex/450.soplex.test 446.00 447.00 0.2%
test-suite...0.perlbench/400.perlbench.test 1729.00 1727.00 -0.1%
test-suite...000/255.vortex/255.vortex.test 3815.00 3819.00 0.1%
Reviewers: efriedma, nikic, davide
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79036
More information about the All-commits
mailing list