Part of the assert has been left active for further debugging.
The other part has been turned into a stat for tracking for the
moment.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@292583 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
This is a testcase where phi node cycling happens, and because we do
not order the leaders by domination or anything similar, the leader
keeps changing.
Using std::set for the members is too expensive, and we actually don't
need them sorted all the time, only at leader changes.
We could keep both a set and a vector, and keep them mostly sorted and
resort as necessary, or use a set and a fibheap, but all of this seems
premature.
After running some statistics, we are able to avoid the vast majority
of sorting by keeping a "next leader" field. Most congruence classes only have
leader changes once or twice during GVN.
Reviewers: davide
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28594
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@291968 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
It was always zero. When we move a store from `initial` to its
own congruency class, we end up with a negative store count, which
is obviously wrong.
Also, while here, change StoreCount to be signed so that the assertions
actually fire.
Ack'ed by Daniel Berlin.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@291725 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
classes, and updating checking to allow for equivalence through
reachability.
(Sadly, the checking here is not perfect, and can't be made perfect,
so we'll have to disable it after we are satisfied with correctness.
Right now it is just "very unlikely" to happen.)
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@291698 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary: LLVM's non-standard notion of phi nodes means we can't both try to substitute for undef in phi nodes *and* use phi nodes as leaders all the time. This changes NewGVN to use the same semantics as SimplifyPHINode to decide which phi nodes are equivalent.
Reviewers: davide
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28312
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@291308 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
It placates some bots which complain because they compile the
assertion out and think the variable is unused.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@290825 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Apparently my suggestion of using ternary doesn't really work
as clang complains about incompatible types on LHS and RHS. Some
GCC versions happen to accept the code but clang behaviour is
correct here.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@290822 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
This avoids the very fragile code for null expressions. We could also use a denseset that tracks which things have null expressions instead, but that seems pretty fragile and premature optimization.
This resolves a number of infinite loop cases, test reductions coming.
Reviewers: davide
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28193
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@290816 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary: Previously, we tried to fix up the equivalences during symbolic evaluation. This does not work. Now, we change the equivalences during congruence finding, where it belongs. We also initialize the equivalence table to give a maximal answer.
Reviewers: davide
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28192
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@290815 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
The optimal iteration order for this problem is RPO order. We want to
process as many preds of a backedge as we can before we process the
backedge.
At the same time, as we add predicate handling, we want to be able to
touch instructions that are dominated by a given block by
ranges (because a change in value numbering a predicate possibly
affects all users we dominate that are using that predicate).
If we don't do it this way, we can't do value inference over
backedges (the paper covers this in depth).
The newgvn branch currently overshoots the last part, and guarantees
that it will touch *at least* the right set of instructions, but it
does touch more. This is because the bitvector instruction ranges are
currently generated in RPO order (so we take the max and the min of
the ranges of dominated blocks, which means there are some in the
middle we didn't have to touch that we did).
We can do better by sorting the dominator tree, and then just using
dominator tree order.
As a preliminary, the dominator tree has some RPO guarantees, but not
enough. It guarantees that for a given node, your idom must come
before you in the RPO ordering. It guarantees no relative RPO ordering
for siblings. We add siblings in whatever order they appear in the module.
So that is what we fix.
We sort the children array of the domtree into RPO order, and then use
the dominator tree for ordering, instead of RPO, since the dominator
tree is now a valid RPO ordering.
Note: This would help any other pass that iterates a forward problem
in dominator tree order. Most of them are single pass. It will still
maximize whatever result they compute. We could also build the
dominator tree in this order, but our incremental updates would still
put it out of sort order, and recomputing the sort order is almost as
hard as general incremental updates of the domtree.
Also note that the sorting does not affect any tests, etc. Nothing
depends on domtree order, including the verifier, the equals
functions for domtree nodes, etc.
How much could this matter, you ask?
Here are the current numbers.
This is generated by running NewGVN over all files in LLVM.
Note that once we propagate equalities, the differences go up by an
order of magnitude or two (IE instead of 29, the max ends up in the
thousands, since the worst case we add a factor of N, where N is the
number of branch predicates). So while it doesn't look that stark for
the default ordering, it gets *much much* worse. There are also
programs in the wild where the difference is already pretty stark
(2 iterations vs hundreds).
RPO ordering:
759040 Number of iterations is 1
112908 Number of iterations is 2
Default dominator tree ordering:
755081 Number of iterations is 1
116234 Number of iterations is 2
603 Number of iterations is 3
27 Number of iterations is 4
2 Number of iterations is 5
1 Number of iterations is 7
Dominator tree sorted:
759040 Number of iterations is 1
112908 Number of iterations is 2
<yay!>
Really bad ordering (sort domtree siblings in postorder. not quite the
worst possible, but yeah):
754008 Number of iterations is 1
21 Number of iterations is 10
8 Number of iterations is 11
6 Number of iterations is 12
5 Number of iterations is 13
2 Number of iterations is 14
2 Number of iterations is 15
3 Number of iterations is 16
1 Number of iterations is 17
2 Number of iterations is 18
96642 Number of iterations is 2
1 Number of iterations is 20
2 Number of iterations is 21
1 Number of iterations is 22
1 Number of iterations is 29
17266 Number of iterations is 3
2598 Number of iterations is 4
798 Number of iterations is 5
273 Number of iterations is 6
186 Number of iterations is 7
80 Number of iterations is 8
42 Number of iterations is 9
Reviewers: chandlerc, davide
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28129
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@290699 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
emplace_back is not faster if it is equivalent to push_back. In this cases emplaced value had the
same type that the one stored in container. It is ugly and it might be even slower (see
Scott Meyers presentation about emplacement).
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@290685 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
