[PATCH] D64405: [DependenceAnalysis] Dependecies for loads marked with "ivnariant.load" should not be shared with general accesses. Fix for https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42151

[Evgeniy via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

ebrevnov added a comment.

In D64405#1577644 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D64405#1577644>, @jdoerfert wrote:

> In D64405#1577614 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D64405#1577614>, @ebrevnov wrote:
>
> > In D64405#1576608 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D64405#1576608>, @jdoerfert wrote:
> >
> > > Why do we need both changes, reading the cache and writing it, assuming I understand the code correctly?
> > >  I would have assumed not caching "inv-load" results would fix the problem. And I can see we do not want to reuse
> > >  non-inv-load results for inv-loads. However, I would argue one could always check for a cached result and use
> > >  it if the result is "good". Do I miss something here?
> >
> >
> > Yes, you are reading the change correctly. The thing is that both results (one for inv-load case another for non inv-load) are "good". They are just different. Each result should be used for corresponding case only and not for the other. In other words using result from non-inv case for inv-case is not correct as well. Does it make sense?
>
>
> No, but I'm tired. I would have assumed that I can drop the `inv-load` metadata without semantic change. If that is the case, I should be able to use the `non-inv` result if it is cached and already good enough. That would mean we can keep the lookup but do only return the cached result if it is "the best". Maybe my problem is that I do not know the lattice of potential values.
>
> Either way, is it possible and useful to test for the number of (un)cached queries?


I believe you assumption regarding 'invariant.load' metadata not changing the semantics is not accurate. According to spec, If such instruction is executed there are number of assumptions the optimizer may do regarding the program. For example it's safe to assume that there are no stores before and no stores changing value after such instruction. Otherwise behavior is undefined. In general case there is no way to know at compile time if  invariant load will be exectuted or not. That means you can't blindly propagate results of dependence analysis for invariant load to "normal" loads. And visa-verse results of dependence analysis for "normal" load doesn't take semantic imposed by "invariant.load" into account and would be sub-optimal if used for invariant load.


Repository:
  rL LLVM

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D64405/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D64405