[llvm-dev] RFC: SROA for method argument

[Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev]

I'll propose a different heuristic. SROA should ignore stores of arguments
into allocas in the entry block when deciding what slices to form. Such
stores happen exactly once, and are usually coercions that we have to do
for ABI reasons. SROA should generate code like this before promoting
allocas to SSA form:

define i32 @func(i64 %r.coerce.0, i64 %r.coerce.1) {
  %r.slice.0 = alloca i64
  %r.slice.1 = alloca i32
  %r.slice.2 = alloca i32
  store i64 %r.coerce.0, i64* %r.slice.0
  %r.1.shr = lshr i64 %r.coerce.1, 32
  %r.1 = trunc i64 %r.1.shr
  %r.2 = trunc i64 %r.coerce.1
  store i32 %r.1, i32* %r.slice.1
  store i32 %r.2, i32* %r.slice.2
  ...
}

This is basically "reasoning about the CFG" without actually looking at
loop info. Stores of arguments in the entry block can't be in a loop. Even
if they end up in one after inlining, instcombine should be able to
simplify the {i32,i32}->i64->{i32,i32} code.

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Friedman, Eli via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> On 5/9/2017 6:05 AM, Hiroshi 7 Inoue via llvm-dev wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am working to improve SROA to generate better code when a method has a
> struct in its arguments. I would appreciate it if I could have any
> suggestions or comments on how I can best proceed with this optimization.
>
> * Problem *
> I observed that LLVM often generates redundant instructions around glibc’s
> istreambuf_iterator. The problem comes from the scalar replacement (SROA)
> for methods with an aggregate as an argument. Here is a simplified example
> in C.
>
> struct record {
> long long a;
> int b;
> int c;
> };
>
> int func(struct record r) {
> for (int i = 0; i < r.c; i++)
> r.b++;
> return r.b;
> }
>
> When updating r.b (or r.c as well), SROA generates redundant instructions
> on some platforms (such as x86_64 and ppc64); here, r.b and r.c are packed
> into one 64-bit GPR when the struct is passed as a method argument. The
> problem is caused when the same memory location is accessed by load/store
> instructions of different types.
> For this example, CLANG generates following IRs to initialize the struct
> for ppc64 and x86_64. For both platforms, the 64-bit value is stored into
> memory allocated by alloca first. Later, the same memory location is
> accessed as 32-bit integer values (r.b and r.c).
>
> for ppc64
> %struct.record = type { i64, i32, i32 }
>
> define signext i32 @ppc64le_func([2 x i64] %r.coerce) #0 {
> entry:
> %r = alloca %struct.record, align 8
> %0 = bitcast %struct.record* %r to [2 x i64]*
> store [2 x i64] %r.coerce, [2 x i64]* %0, align 8
> ....
>
> for x86_64
> define i32 @x86_64_func(i64 %r.coerce0, i64 %r.coerce1) #0 {
> entry:
> %r = alloca %struct.record, align 8
> %0 = bitcast %struct.record* %r to { i64, i64 }*
> %1 = getelementptr inbounds { i64, i64 }, { i64, i64 }* %0, i32 0, i32 0
> store i64 %r.coerce0, i64* %1, align 8
> %2 = getelementptr inbounds { i64, i64 }, { i64, i64 }* %0, i32 0, i32 1
> store i64 %r.coerce1, i64* %2, align 8
> ....
>
> For such code sequence, the current SROA generates instructions to update
> only upper (or lower) half of the 64-bit value when storing r.b (or r.c).
> SROA can split an i64 value into two i32 values under some conditions (e.g.
> when the struct contains only int b and int c in this example), but it is
> not capable of splitting complex cases.
>
> When there are accesses of mixed type to an alloca, SROA just treats the
> whole alloca as a big integer, and generates PHI nodes appropriately.  In
> many cases, instcombine would then slice up the generated PHI nodes to use
> more appropriate types, but that doesn't work out here.  (See InstCombiner::SliceUpIllegalIntegerPHI.)
> Probably the right solution is to make instcombine more aggressive here;
> it's hard to come up with a generally useful transform in SROA without
> reasoning about control flow.
>
> -Eli
>
> --
> Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170512/ceffe06f/attachment.html>