[llvm] r193045 - Teach simplify-cfg how to correctly create covered lookup tables for switches on iN with N >= 3.
Chris Lattner
clattner at apple.com
Sun Oct 20 20:43:24 PDT 2013
LGTM! Thanks Michael,
-Chris
On Oct 20, 2013, at 1:51 AM, Michael Gottesman <mgottesman at apple.com> wrote:
> (Attached wrong patch)
>
> <0001-Fix-the-predecessor-removal-logic-in-r193045.patch>
>
> Michael
>
> On Oct 20, 2013, at 1:23 AM, Michael Gottesman <mgottesman at apple.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Oct 20, 2013, at 12:47 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 20, 2013, at 12:04 AM, Michael Gottesman <mgottesman at apple.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Author: mgottesman
>>>> Date: Sun Oct 20 02:04:37 2013
>>>> New Revision: 193045
>>>>
>>>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=193045&view=rev
>>>> Log:
>>>> Teach simplify-cfg how to correctly create covered lookup tables for switches on iN with N >= 3.
>>>
>>> Thanks Michael. More specifically, this is handling "fully-covered" switches. A couple of comments:
>>>
>>>> + // Compute the maximum table size representable by the integer type we are
>>>> + // switching upon.
>>>> + const unsigned CaseSize = MinCaseVal->getType()->getPrimitiveSizeInBits();
>>>> + const uint64_t MaxTableSize = CaseSize > 63? UINT64_MAX : 1ULL << CaseSize;
>>>
>>> We don't generally mark local variables const like this. Please don’t.
>>
>> This was a last minute thing that crept in. Its gone.
>>
>>>
>>>> + assert(MaxTableSize >= TableSize &&
>>>> + "It is impossible for a switch to have more entries than the max "
>>>> + "representable value of its input integer type's size.");
>>>> +
>>>> + // If we have a covered lookup table, unconditionally branch to the lookup table
>>>> + // BB. Otherwise, check if the condition value is within the case range. If it
>>>> + // is so, branch to the new BB. Otherwise branch to SI's default destination.
>>>> + const bool GeneratingCoveredLookupTable = MaxTableSize == TableSize;
>>>
>>> This is a "fully covered" table.
>>
>> Ok.
>>
>>>
>>>> + if (GeneratingCoveredLookupTable) {
>>>> + Builder.CreateBr(LookupBB);
>>>> + } else {
>>>> + Value *Cmp = Builder.CreateICmpULT(TableIndex, ConstantInt::get(
>>>> + MinCaseVal->getType(), TableSize));
>>>> + Builder.CreateCondBr(Cmp, LookupBB, SI->getDefaultDest());
>>>> + }
>>>>
>>>> // Populate the BB that does the lookups.
>>>> Builder.SetInsertPoint(LookupBB);
>>>> @@ -3772,7 +3788,13 @@ static bool SwitchToLookupTable(SwitchIn
>>>> // Remove the switch.
>>>> for (unsigned i = 0; i < SI->getNumSuccessors(); ++i) {
>>>
>>> This is not a problem in your patch, but there is no reason to evaluate getNumSuccessors() each time through the loop.
>>
>> Sounds good.
>>
>>>
>>>> BasicBlock *Succ = SI->getSuccessor(i);
>>>> - if (Succ == SI->getDefaultDest()) continue;
>>>> +
>>>> + // If we are not generating a covered lookup table, we will have a
>>>> + // conditional branch from SI's parent BB to SI's default destination if our
>>>> + // input value lies outside of our case range. Thus in that case leave the
>>>> + // default destination BB as a predecessor of SI's parent BB.
>>>> + if (Succ == SI->getDefaultDest() && !GeneratingCoveredLookupTable)
>>>> + continue;
>>>
>>> This doesn't seem like the right check. If there is a switch whose default destination is "BB" and there are explicit edges to the same block, this will incorrectly remove multiple predecessors. The right patch for this is simply:
>>>
>>> if (GeneratingCoveredLookupTable) {
>>> Builder.CreateBr(LookupBB);
>>> SI->getDefaultDest()->removePredecessor(SI->getParent());
>>> } else {
>>> Value *Cmp = Builder.CreateICmpULT(TableIndex, ConstantInt::get(
>>> MinCaseVal->getType(), TableSize));
>>> Builder.CreateCondBr(Cmp, LookupBB, SI->getDefaultDest());
>>> }
>>>
>>> Without this logic in the loop.
>>
>> Ok you are right. Removing a successor which is no longer a successor is not a good thing to do = /. (*DOH*)
>>
>> How does the attached patch look?
>>
>> <0001-Teach-simplify-cfg-how-to-correctly-create-covered-l.patch>
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>>
>>> -Chris
>>>
>>>> Succ->removePredecessor(SI->getParent());
>>>> }
>>>> SI->eraseFromParent();
>>>>
>>>> Added: llvm/trunk/test/Transforms/SimplifyCFG/CoveredLookupTable.ll
>>>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/test/Transforms/SimplifyCFG/CoveredLookupTable.ll?rev=193045&view=auto
>>>> ==============================================================================
>>>> --- llvm/trunk/test/Transforms/SimplifyCFG/CoveredLookupTable.ll (added)
>>>> +++ llvm/trunk/test/Transforms/SimplifyCFG/CoveredLookupTable.ll Sun Oct 20 02:04:37 2013
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
>>>> +; RUN: opt -simplifycfg -S %s | FileCheck %s
>>>> +; rdar://15268442
>>>> +
>>>> +target datalayout = "e-p:64:64:64-S128-i1:8:8-i8:8:8-i16:16:16-i32:32:32-i64:64:64-f16:16:16-f32:32:32-f64:64:64-f128:128:128-v64:64:64-v128:128:128-a0:0:64-s0:64:64-f80:128:128-n8:16:32:64"
>>>> +target triple = "x86_64-apple-darwin12.0.0"
>>>> +
>>>> +; CHECK-LABEL: define i3 @coveredswitch_test(
>>>> +; CHECK: entry:
>>>> +; CHECK-NEXT: sub i3 %input, -4
>>>> +; CHECK-NEXT: zext i3 %switch.tableidx to i24
>>>> +; CHECK-NEXT: mul i24 %switch.cast, 3
>>>> +; CHECK-NEXT: lshr i24 7507338, %switch.shiftamt
>>>> +; CHECK-NEXT: trunc i24 %switch.downshift to i3
>>>> +; CHECK-NEXT: ret i3 %switch.masked
>>>> +
>>>> +define i3 @coveredswitch_test(i3 %input) {
>>>> +entry:
>>>> + switch i3 %input, label %bb8 [
>>>> + i3 0, label %bb7
>>>> + i3 1, label %bb
>>>> + i3 2, label %bb3
>>>> + i3 3, label %bb4
>>>> + i3 4, label %bb5
>>>> + i3 5, label %bb6
>>>> + ]
>>>> +
>>>> +bb: ; preds = %entry
>>>> + br label %bb8
>>>> +
>>>> +bb3: ; preds = %entry
>>>> + br label %bb8
>>>> +
>>>> +bb4: ; preds = %entry
>>>> + br label %bb8
>>>> +
>>>> +bb5: ; preds = %entry
>>>> + br label %bb8
>>>> +
>>>> +bb6: ; preds = %entry
>>>> + br label %bb8
>>>> +
>>>> +bb7: ; preds = %entry
>>>> + br label %bb8
>>>> +
>>>> +bb8: ; preds = %bb7, %bb6, %bb5, %bb4, %bb3, %bb, %entry
>>>> + %result = phi i3 [ 0, %bb7 ], [ 1, %bb6 ], [ 2, %bb5 ], [ 3, %bb4 ], [ 4, %bb3 ], [ 5, %bb ], [ 6, %entry ]
>>>> + ret i3 %result
>>>> +}
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/20131020/1aad6fd5/attachment.html>
More information about the llvm-commits
mailing list