[llvm-dev] Questions about jump threading optimization and what we can do

[Karl Rehm via llvm-dev]

Ah, I see. I think there's something else going on here too, though.
https://godbolt.org/z/dCqdvv is optimized away but ScEv doesn't know
whether this loop terminates either.

On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 1:36 PM Michael Kruse <llvmdev at meinersbur.de> wrote:

> I am not convinced this is a jump-threading issue, but in the domain
> of ScalarEvolution. ScEv would need to find out which of the exits are
> taken or whether it loops infinitely. One can see that it exits after
> 10000 iterations, but ScalarEvolution cannot tell:
> https://godbolt.org/z/dCqdvv
>
> Michael
>
> Am Mo., 3. Feb. 2020 um 11:56 Uhr schrieb Karl Rehm <klrehm123 at gmail.com>:
> >
> > Well ideally it'd do the same thing as before (with two if statements).
> Something like:
> > ret i64 4
> >
> > It's not really about needing to be as good as gcc, it's more that I
> wonder why the same concept with just two if-else blocks gets optimized yet
> more doesn't.
> > An interesting point to make is that I don't think it's jump threading
> optimizing the original example fully: https://godbolt.org/z/rGvHJk
> >
> > -Karl
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 12:29 PM Michael Kruse <llvmdev at meinersbur.de>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> How does the code you would like to have look like? I don't see a
> >> relevant difference compared to gcc:
> >> https://godbolt.org/z/F-oah4
> >> (clang unnecessarily introduces another temporary register, but that
> >> seems unrelated)
> >>
> >> Michael
> >>
> >> Am So., 2. Feb. 2020 um 18:24 Uhr schrieb Karl Rehm via llvm-dev
> >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>:
> >> >
> >> > Here's a better example. https://godbolt.org/z/fpTyFS
> >> > I don't know what exactly you would need to change in JumpThreading
> to improve this, but I'm open to ideas.
> >> >
> >> > On Sun, Feb 2, 2020 at 12:45 PM Karl Rehm <klrehm123 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Holy crap, I completely missed that. I'm sorry! That's my fault.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sun, Feb 2, 2020 at 12:15 PM Johannes Doerfert <jdoerfert at anl.gov>
> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On 01/30, Karl Rehm via llvm-dev wrote:
> >> >>> > Since the bug report here:
> https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44679 I've
> >> >>> > been thinking about cases like it, such as:
> https://godbolt.org/z/Fwq8mn
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > I wonder what we can do about this in a general sense. As far as
> I can
> >> >>> > tell, the jump threading algorithm is *really* conservative,
> which is one
> >> >>> > reason this isn't working as well as I'd hope; however, we don't
> want to
> >> >>> > produce irreducible control flow that the other passes would work
> less
> >> >>> > effectively on. Thoughts?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I'm confused. In your godbold link you run it with O0 which disables
> >> >>> almost all transformations. If we take the IR, remove the optnone
> >> >>> attribute, run mem2reg and jump-threading we get what I think is
> >> >>> reasonable:
> >> >>>   https://godbolt.org/z/u3fcTZ
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Please correct me if I misunderstand anything here.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Cheers,
> >> >>>   Johannes
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> >> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> >> > https://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/20200203/a24ddff0/attachment.html>