[llvm-dev] Any significance for m_OneUse in (X / Y) / Z => X / (Y * Z) ??

[raghesh via llvm-dev]

Here is my case.

Z / (1.0 / Y) => (Y * Z)

This is similar to Z / (X / Y) => (Y * Z) / X. Currently, the former one is
prohibitted because of the one-use check. In the latter, as you explained
earlier, the number of instructions are increased from 2 to 3. However, in
the former case (where X = 1.0), the number of instructions remain the same
as the division by 1.0 is avoided. Additionally, instead of a division, now
we have a multiplication. This potentially may reduce the number of
instruction cycles.

Regards,
------------------------------
Raghesh Aloor
AMD India Pvt. Ltd.
Bengaluru.
------------------------------


On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 10:14 AM Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com> wrote:

> Is your case the case mentioned in the subject or a different case?
>
> ~Craig
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 8:11 PM raghesh <raghesh.a at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Sanjay for your comments.
>>
>> So, if we want to add a transformation avoiding the one-use check, which
>> one is the ideal pass? Shall we do it in -aggressive-instcombine? I came
>> to know that if the pattern search complexity is O(n) [1] we should go for
>> aggressive-instcombine. If it is O(1) we must do that in -instcombine.
>> However, in my case, the complexity is still O(1) and want to avoid the
>> one-use check.
>>
>> [1] n is the number of instructions in the function.
>>
>> Regards,
>> ------------------------------
>> Raghesh Aloor
>> AMD India Pvt. Ltd.
>> Bengaluru.
>> ------------------------------
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 8:02 PM Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> A couple more general comments:
>>> 1. There shouldn't be any correctness issues removing one-use checks
>>> (the transform should be safe independently of use-counts).
>>> 2. Ideally, you can remove a m_OneUse() from the code and run 'make
>>> check' or similar, and you will see a regression test failure because we
>>> have a 'negative' test to cover that pattern. That should make it clear
>>> that the one-use check is there intentionally and what the effect of
>>> removing it is. We've gotten better about including those kinds of
>>> regression tests over time, but I don't know what percentage of all
>>> instcombine transforms actually have that test coverage.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 7:12 PM Craig Topper via llvm-dev <
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> As a general rule, InstCombine tries not increase the total number of
>>>> instructions. If X/Y has another use other than this one, then it still
>>>> ends up being calculated. Without the one use check you'd trade 2 fdivs,
>>>> for 1 mul (Y * Z), and 2 fdivs ((X*Y)/Z) and the original (X / Y).
>>>>
>>>> ~Craig
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 4:07 PM raghesh via llvm-dev <
>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>
>>>>> The InstCombine pass performs the following transformation.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Z / (X / Y) => (Y * Z) / X
>>>>>
>>>>> This is performed only when operand Op1 ( (X/Y) in this case) has only
>>>>> one use in future. The code snippet is shown below.
>>>>>
>>>>>     if (match(Op1, m_OneUse(m_FDiv(m_Value(X), m_Value(Y)))) &&
>>>>>         (!isa<Constant>(Y) || !isa<Constant>(Op0))) {
>>>>>       // Z / (X / Y) => (Y * Z) / X
>>>>>       Value *YZ = Builder.CreateFMulFMF(Y, Op0, &I);
>>>>>       return BinaryOperator::CreateFDivFMF(YZ, X, &I);
>>>>>     }
>>>>>
>>>>> It would be great if someone explains if there is any issue
>>>>> (correctness/performance-wise) if we avoid the m_OueUse check. What
>>>>> if we perform the transformation even if there are multiple uses?
>>>>>
>>>>> There are similar transformations which perform the m_OueUse check.
>>>>> We may avoid those too if there is no particular reason for the check.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>> Raghesh Aloor
>>>>> AMD India Pvt. Ltd.
>>>>> Bengaluru.
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/20200106/85fddc78/attachment.html>