Bug 16358: simplify SCEVs with assumptions
Andrew Trick
atrick at apple.com
Mon Nov 25 16:47:30 PST 2013
On Nov 25, 2013, at 4:39 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Andrew Trick" <atrick at apple.com>
>> To: "Sebastian Pop" <spop at codeaurora.org>
>> Cc: "llvm commits" <llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu>
>> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 6:07:39 PM
>> Subject: Re: Bug 16358: simplify SCEVs with assumptions
>>
>>
>> On Nov 25, 2013, at 10:56 AM, Sebastian Pop <spop at codeaurora.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have started looking at SCEV simplify in the context of
>>> determining the number
>>> of iterations for this loop:
>>>
>>> void foo(int n, int *A) {
>>> for (short i = 0; i < n; i++)
>>> A[i] = 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> where the niter computation is confused and answers "could not
>>> compute" because
>>> the SCEV representation of %i contains a zext expression.
>>>
>>> Now supposing that we remove the zext in "Expr = zext(Op i16 to
>>> i32)" by
>>> replacing the zext with a cast(Op, i32) and this under the
>>> assumption that Expr
>>> has values in range:
>>> ConstantRange Range = SE.getUnsignedRange(Expr);
>>>
>>> With this simplified representation of %i, niter ends up with a
>>> number of
>>> iterations of the form "%n". This assumption will then impact the
>>> computation of
>>> other SCEVs, like the value of %i at the end of the loop, etc., and
>>> with
>>> ScalarEvolution's caching, the same assumptions will be used in
>>> other niter or
>>> scev analysis queries, making it almost impossible to say which SE
>>> results have
>>> used the assumptions and which are independent.
>>>
>>> For this reason I was thinking that the set of assumptions should
>>> be part of the
>>> state of the ScalarEvolution, and thus users of the SCEV should
>>> either version
>>> the transformed code with the assumptions, or otherwise if
>>> versioning is not
>>> possible, clear out the caches of ScalarEvolution and restart the
>>> analysis under
>>> no assumptions.
>>
>> I'm nervous about managing SCEV caches that depend on query context
>> because it is so hard to test and reason about the correctness, and
>> it’s hard to know if compile time will become unbounded. Do we
>> really need to solve this problem?
>>
>> If the trip count computation could directly analyze expressions of
>> this form:
>>
>> %conv = sext i16 %inc to i32
>> --> (sext i16 {1,+,1}<%for.body> to i32)
>>
>> And gather assumptions during the analysis, then SCEV simplification
>> doesn't need to do the work. (In fact I think we should do less work
>> in SCEV simplification).
>>
>> Say we had a utility, e.g. ScalarEvolution::promoteIV, that would
>> take a SCEV of the form:
>> (sext i16 {1,+,1}<%for.body> to i32)
>>
>> And return a new SCEV:
>> {1,+,1}<%for.body>
>
> I think that the underlying issue is: do you put nsw on this expression?
No. Anyone using this result needs to prove the “i < 2**16" assumption or add a constraint to the loop.
I think we can do more with trip count and dependence analysis queries without SCEV NSW flags... They were just convenient initially.
-Andy
> -Hal
>
>>
>> Along with it's set of assumptions:
>> "{1,+,1}<%for.body>" < 2**16
>>
>> We can always factor code between getSignExtendExpr and promoteIV,
>> but I'm only looking at a few lines of code to do this.
>>
>> It up to the caller to prove the assumption as a loop precondition,
>> undefined behavior inference, or whatever. In the case of trip count
>> computation, HowManyLessThans would prove the assumptions that it
>> can and report the rest to the client of the trip count query.
>> Aggressive loop opts, like LoopVectorizer, can gather the
>> assumptions from various queries and materialize the minimum number
>> of constraints such that they all hold. SCEV could provide a utility
>> to optimize the constraints.
>>
>> -Andy
>>
>>>
>>> Sebastian
>>>
>>> Arnold Schwaighofer wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 11, 2013, at 4:17 PM, Sebastian Pop <spop at codeaurora.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Arnold Schwaighofer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Interesting, in such a framework - if I understand you correctly
>>>>>> - whenever we
>>>>>> simplify an expression we would have to try several assumptions:
>>>>>> a harder
>>>>>
>>>>> I think SCEV folding could compute the assumptions needed to
>>>>> simplify the
>>>>> expression. Let's take the example from the bug report:
>>>>> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=16358
>>>>>
>>>>>> 8 * (zext i32 ({0,+,2}%<for_body>) to i64)+ %C_aligned
>>>>>> 8 * (zext i32 ({1,+,2}%<for_body>) to i64)+ %C_aligned
>>>>>> Without knowing that for the loop <for_body> the functions
>>>>>> "{0,+,2}%<for_body>"
>>>>>> and "{1,+2}%<for_body>" don?t wrap, SCEV cannot remove the zext.
>>>>>
>>>>> simplify would recursively reconstruct the SCEV, so it would
>>>>> first dive in the
>>>>> innermost expression, and the first assumption it would extract
>>>>> is from
>>>>> simplifying (zext i32 ({0,+,2}%<for_body>) to i64)
>>>>>
>>>>> simplify(zext i32 ({0,+,2}%<for_body>) to i64) =
>>>>> {0,+,2}%<for_body> assuming
>>>>> {0,+,2}%<for_body> does not wrap, i.e., 2*N < 2**32
>>>>>
>>>>> simplify would produce two constraints:
>>>>>
>>>>> 2*N < 2**32
>>>>> 2*N+1 < 2**32
>>>>>
>>>>> we should keep the one satisfying both simplified expressions:
>>>>> 2*N+1 < 2**32
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Okay, I see now. I was looking at the problem top down - hence a
>>>> tree of
>>>> decisions :) - and was worried that for some examples we would
>>>> have to guess a
>>>> value. But bottom up we should have already seen such values.
>>>> Right.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
>>> hosted by The Linux Foundation
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> llvm-commits mailing list
>> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>>
>
> --
> Hal Finkel
> Assistant Computational Scientist
> Leadership Computing Facility
> Argonne National Laboratory
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20131125/2c615129/attachment.html>
More information about the llvm-commits
mailing list