<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Nick Lewycky <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:nlewycky@google.com" target="_blank">nlewycky@google.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="">On 8 September 2015 at 11:28, Piotr Padlewski <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:prazek@google.com" target="_blank">prazek@google.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">Prazek marked an inline comment as done.<br>
<span><br>
================<br>
Comment at: lib/CodeGen/CodeGenPrepare.cpp:1414-1417<br>
@@ -1413,2 +1413,6 @@<br>
}<br>
+ case Intrinsic::invariant_group_barrier:<br>
+ II->replaceAllUsesWith(II->getArgOperand(0));<br>
+ II->eraseFromParent();<br>
+ return true;<br>
}<br>
----------------<br>
</span><span>nlewycky wrote:<br>
> Do we also discard the !invariant.group metadata on instructions?<br>
><br>
> The backend has pointers to the Value*'s, it would be bad if they used the !invariant.group markers but all the invariant.group.barrier calls had been removed.<br>
</span>The question is, does it make any difference? What I understand, is that CodeGenPrepare is done just before machine code generation, which means that additional metadata in load/stores doesn't make any difference.<br></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>Today it does not. My point is that machine code generation does look at Value*. It does things like alias analysis on the IR. Leaving the !invariant.group there is a trap for a future developer.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Ok, I will get rid of it, but it is not part of this review. <a href="http://reviews.llvm.org/D12026">http://reviews.llvm.org/D12026</a></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><span class=""><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span>
================<br>
Comment at: lib/Transforms/IPO/GlobalOpt.cpp:2507-2508<br>
@@ -2506,1 +2506,4 @@<br>
continue;<br>
+ } else if (II->getIntrinsicID() == Intrinsic::invariant_group_barrier) {<br>
+ setVal(II, getVal(II->getOperand(0)));<br>
+ DEBUG(dbgs() << "Passing through invariant.group.barrier intrinsic.\n");<br>
----------------<br>
</span><span>nlewycky wrote:<br>
> Why is this safe? We have<br>
> %p2 = call @invariant.group.barrier(%p1)<br>
> and we set that %p2 just plain *is* %p1. Then nothing happens until evaluation completes and we commit the changes, which means replacing %p2 with %p1. At the time, why won't that operation miscompile?<br>
><br>
> I can think of two possible reasons, one is that %p1 may be constrained (like, it may be a ConstantExpr) and the other is that we may know that there are no remaining loads of either %p1 or %p2 with !invariant.group on them.<br>
><br>
> In any event, please answer in the form of a comment in this code. :)<br>
</span>What do you mean about miscompile?<br>
I think this is safe because global-opt doesn't care about !invariant.group metadata, which means that getting rid of invariant.group.barrier will not break anything.<br></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>That's a good start, but why is it impossible to get a case where replacing the pointer is something globalopt does, then the pointer is used by a load in a function that globalopt didn't look at?</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div>I am wating for test case as we disscuss </div></div><br></div></div>