[PATCH] Improvements to SSA construction

[Chandler Carruth]

I'd like to understand why Cameron would prefer the 'b' patch to the 'a'
patch. AFAICT, the 'b' patch doesn't save any actual memory (sadly).

Also, if we go with 'a', would it make sense to use a SetVector rather than
a separate vector and set?

On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 1:36 PM Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote:

> I'm running numbers on both approaches now, to see if there is any
> real difference in speed.
>
> (otherwise, i think the one with two visited worklists is easier to
> understand, unless someone else wants to disagree :P)
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at apple.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi Cameron,
> >
> > Sounds good.
> >
> > Let us wait the complete testing from Daniel before reviewing the patch.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Quentin
> >> On Apr 6, 2015, at 11:27 AM, Cameron Zwarich <zwarich at apple.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> It was pointed out to me (without any specifics) that the iterated
> dominance frontier algorithm in PromoteMemoryToRegister.cpp has O(n^2)
> worst case behavior.
> >>
> >> I inspected the code and think I found the cause. The code uses a
> priority queue and a worklist, which share the same visited set, but the
> visited set is only updated when inserting into the priority queue. The
> original Sreedhar-Gao paper effectively has a second visited set (the InPhi
> flag) which is used for the priority queue, and the set called Visited is
> used for the recursive traversal that is done here with a worklist.
> >>
> >> I’ve attached two patches, one which just adds a second visited sit,
> and another which leverages the fact that one of the visited sets is
> actually the IDF. I would prefer the latter if it has equal performance
> with the first.
> >>
> >> They both pass `make check`, but I’m not sure I’ll have time to give
> these patches the testing they’ll deserve in the next few days. Daniel
> Berlin has offered to test them more thoroughly for me.
> >>
> >> Note that there is still one difference with the paper. The paper uses
> a custom linked data structure instead of a priority queue, which takes
> advantage of the property that the level of all nodes being inserted is at
> most the current level. The code in LLVM uses a priority queue based on a
> binary heap. This means that the worst case is O(n log n), but I’d be
> surprised if the difference matters in practice.
> >>
> >> Cameron
> >>
> >> <idf-faster-a.patch><idf-faster-b.patch>_______________
> ________________________________
> >> llvm-commits mailing list
> >> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20150406/674d8c9f/attachment.html>