<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.gmailmsg
{mso-style-name:gmail_msg;}
p.gmailmsg1, li.gmailmsg1, div.gmailmsg1
{mso-style-name:gmail_msg1;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in">
<span class="gmailmsg"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Discriminators can't help you when the same instruction belongs to two different blocks.</span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><br>
What I meant was - you were talking about the ambiguity of keeping it on the same line, when sunk into the common tail block (if it happens to be on the same line) - that that would make the profile ambiguous/confused because now all 3 blocks are the same location.
Discriminators disambiguate those 3 blocks that are all on the same line (the if, the else, and the common successor).<br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Discriminators let you say that two different instructions belong to two different blocks even though they have the same source location.
If we ignore columns for a single-line if-then-else then yes we can (do!) use discriminators exactly that way.<o:p></o:p></span></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">If we postulate a transformation from
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">if (x) stmt1; else stmt2;<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">into<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">{ if (x) stmt1-prefix; else stmt2-prefix; common-suffix; }<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">then you could in principle use discriminators to distinguish the original two blocks and the artificial third block.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">However that artificial third block does not unambiguously map back to any source block. It does not help weight the branch decision that chooses between stmt1
and stmt2, and the *relative* weight is really what matters here.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I don't know what the profile analysis does with hits on the common suffix; one hopes that they are somehow treated the same as hits on the instructions that
are evaluating the 'x' condition, i.e. counting toward the block containing the original 'if'. With sufficient bookkeeping I suppose we'd be able to tag the common suffix with the source location of the parent 'if' but it's doubtful we could really make that
work.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">--paulr<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> David Blaikie [mailto:dblaikie@gmail.com]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, October 18, 2016 5:51 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Robinson, Paul; reviews+D25742+public+84a9fdd1c5228b3b@reviews.llvm.org; rob.lougher@gmail.com; danielcdh@gmail.com; Pieb, Wolfgang; aprantl@apple.com<br>
<b>Cc:</b> llvm-commits@lists.llvm.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [PATCH] D25742: Remove debug location from common tail when tail-merging<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 5:04 PM Robinson, Paul <<a href="mailto:paul.robinson@sony.com">paul.robinson@sony.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span class="gmailmsg"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Discriminators can't help you when the same instruction belongs to two different
blocks.</span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
What I meant was - you were talking about the ambiguity of keeping it on the same line, when sunk into the common tail block (if it happens to be on the same line) - that that would make the profile ambiguous/confused because now all 3 blocks are the same location.
Discriminators disambiguate those 3 blocks that are all on the same line (the if, the else, and the common successor).<br>
<br>
But anyway - there's no great answer for any of this, but I'm happy enough to use profiling as a guide for what the right location is (even if, arguably, the experience for debugger users might be a bit weird - not having certain lines of code execute, etc
- because the alternative would just be differently weird). & I don't think it's really worth optimizing for the "these two blocks happen to be on the same line so we can use the line and drop the column"<br>
<br>
- Dave<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span class="gmailmsg"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span class="gmailmsg"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">The point (which we should not lose track of) is that when you merge the tails
of two blocks, the source attribution becomes inherently ambiguous. This is not great for debugging and is bad for profiling. Erasing the source attribution means at least we aren't actively lying to either one; again it is not great for debugging, although
IIUC profiling can cope. In my opinion that makes erasing the source location "less bad" than what we have now.</span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span class="gmailmsg"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span class="gmailmsg"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">But, the alternatives appear to be either killing off the optimization (removing
the ambiguity at a code-size cost) or doing a LOT of work so we can attribute multiple source locations to the same instructions (which only pushes the problem downstream to the DWARF consumer, who probably has no idea how to cope). (It is not, I have discovered,
impossible to construct a line table that attributes multiple source locations to the same instruction. But nobody expects to see that.)</span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span class="gmailmsg"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">--paulr</span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span class="gmailmsg"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><a name="m_7169161408211231810__MailEndCompose"><span class="gmailmsg"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span class="gmailmsg"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b></span><span class="gmailmsg"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
llvm-commits [mailto:<a href="mailto:llvm-commits-bounces@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-commits-bounces@lists.llvm.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>David Blaikie via llvm-commits</span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""><br>
<span class="gmailmsg"><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, October 18, 2016 4:34 PM</span><br>
<span class="gmailmsg"><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:reviews%2BD25742%2Bpublic%2B84a9fdd1c5228b3b@reviews.llvm.org" target="_blank">
reviews+D25742+public+84a9fdd1c5228b3b@reviews.llvm.org</a>; <a href="mailto:rob.lougher@gmail.com" target="_blank">
rob.lougher@gmail.com</a>; <a href="mailto:danielcdh@gmail.com" target="_blank">danielcdh@gmail.com</a>; Pieb, Wolfgang;
<a href="mailto:aprantl@apple.com" target="_blank">aprantl@apple.com</a></span><br>
<span class="gmailmsg"><b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:llvm-commits@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">
llvm-commits@lists.llvm.org</a></span><br>
<span class="gmailmsg"><b>Subject:</b> Re: [PATCH] D25742: Remove debug location from common tail when tail-merging</span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="gmailmsg1">That's what discriminators are for - but I've no idea where that fits in the workflow etc.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="gmailmsg1">In any case I'm not sure it's worth worrying about reusing the same line when it happens to be all on the same line (& removing the column - what a debugger would do seeing some things with column info and some without etc)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">On Tue., 18 Oct. 2016, 4:27 pm Paul Robinson, <<a href="mailto:paul.robinson@sony.com" target="_blank">paul.robinson@sony.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt">probinson added a comment.<br>
<br>
In <a href="https://reviews.llvm.org/D25742#573687" target="_blank">https://reviews.llvm.org/D25742#573687</a>, @aprantl wrote:<br>
<br>
> In <a href="https://reviews.llvm.org/D25742#573401" target="_blank">https://reviews.llvm.org/D25742#573401</a>, @probinson wrote:<br>
><br>
> > In <a href="https://reviews.llvm.org/D25742#573352" target="_blank">https://reviews.llvm.org/D25742#573352</a>, @aprantl wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > > This approach seems generally fine, but I have one question:<br>
> > ><br>
> > > If the code were on a single line, and both locations share a common ancestor scope, it seems make sense to create a new location using the common ancestor scope and line and only remove the column information.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > That would collapse the if-then-else into (effectively) a single statement. That probably works okay for a debugger but not profiling, which still wants to treat the then/else as distinct. And, after the tail merging, the tails are no longer distinct.<br>
><br>
><br>
> I'm not sure I understand your point. How is having an orphaned add instruction preferable over having it associated with the collapsed if-then-else statement? Wouldn't I want that instruction to be counted towards the line?<br>
<br>
<br>
No, the profiler wants to assign sample counts to each block individually. By giving each block the same source attribution, you assert that they have the same profiles. That's unlikely to be true in practice. Really what happens is that the sample counts
would be assigned to the parent block, which doesn't help the profiler sort out what to do with the nested blocks.<br>
<br>
Admittedly, zapping the source attribution on the merged (parts of the) blocks doesn't let you attribute those counts to *any* block, but at least you aren't attributing counts incorrectly.<br>
<br>
Robert may want to correct some of my assumptions here, but this is my understanding.<br>
<br>
<br>
<a href="https://reviews.llvm.org/D25742" target="_blank">https://reviews.llvm.org/D25742</a><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>