mirror of
https://github.com/c64scene-ar/llvm-6502.git
synced 2024-12-15 04:30:12 +00:00
1b6ca9d0cc
CaptureTracking becomes very expensive in large basic blocks while calling PointerMayBeCaptured. PointerMayBeCaptured scans the BB the number of times equal to the number of uses of 'BeforeHere', which is currently capped at 20 and bails out with Tracker->tooManyUses(). The bottleneck here is the number of calls to PointerMayBeCaptured * the basic block scan. In a testcase with a 82k instruction BB, PointerMayBeCaptured is called 130k times, leading to 'shouldExplore' taking 527k runs, this currently takes ~12min. To fix this we locally (within PointerMayBeCaptured) number the instructions in the basic block using a DenseMap to cache instruction positions/numbers. We build the cache incrementally every time we need to scan an unexplored part of the BB, improving compile time to only take ~2min. This triggers in the flow: DeadStoreElimination -> MepDepAnalysis -> CaptureTracking. Side note: after multiple runs in the test-suite I've seen no performance nor compile time regressions, but could note a couple of compile time improvements: Performance Improvements - Compile Time Delta Previous Current StdDev SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/bigfib -4.48% 0.8547 0.8164 0.0022 MultiSource/Benchmarks/TSVC/LoopRerolling-dbl/LoopRerolling-dbl -1.47% 1.3912 1.3707 0.0056 Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7010 git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@240560 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8 |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| IPA | ||
| AliasAnalysis.cpp | ||
| AliasAnalysisCounter.cpp | ||
| AliasAnalysisEvaluator.cpp | ||
| AliasDebugger.cpp | ||
| AliasSetTracker.cpp | ||
| Analysis.cpp | ||
| AssumptionCache.cpp | ||
| BasicAliasAnalysis.cpp | ||
| BlockFrequencyInfo.cpp | ||
| BlockFrequencyInfoImpl.cpp | ||
| BranchProbabilityInfo.cpp | ||
| CaptureTracking.cpp | ||
| CFG.cpp | ||
| CFGPrinter.cpp | ||
| CFLAliasAnalysis.cpp | ||
| CGSCCPassManager.cpp | ||
| CMakeLists.txt | ||
| CodeMetrics.cpp | ||
| ConstantFolding.cpp | ||
| CostModel.cpp | ||
| Delinearization.cpp | ||
| DependenceAnalysis.cpp | ||
| DivergenceAnalysis.cpp | ||
| DominanceFrontier.cpp | ||
| DomPrinter.cpp | ||
| InstCount.cpp | ||
| InstructionSimplify.cpp | ||
| Interval.cpp | ||
| IntervalPartition.cpp | ||
| IteratedDominanceFrontier.cpp | ||
| IVUsers.cpp | ||
| LazyCallGraph.cpp | ||
| LazyValueInfo.cpp | ||
| LibCallAliasAnalysis.cpp | ||
| LibCallSemantics.cpp | ||
| Lint.cpp | ||
| LLVMBuild.txt | ||
| Loads.cpp | ||
| LoopAccessAnalysis.cpp | ||
| LoopInfo.cpp | ||
| LoopPass.cpp | ||
| Makefile | ||
| MemDepPrinter.cpp | ||
| MemDerefPrinter.cpp | ||
| MemoryBuiltins.cpp | ||
| MemoryDependenceAnalysis.cpp | ||
| MemoryLocation.cpp | ||
| ModuleDebugInfoPrinter.cpp | ||
| NoAliasAnalysis.cpp | ||
| PHITransAddr.cpp | ||
| PostDominators.cpp | ||
| PtrUseVisitor.cpp | ||
| README.txt | ||
| RegionInfo.cpp | ||
| RegionPass.cpp | ||
| RegionPrinter.cpp | ||
| ScalarEvolution.cpp | ||
| ScalarEvolutionAliasAnalysis.cpp | ||
| ScalarEvolutionExpander.cpp | ||
| ScalarEvolutionNormalization.cpp | ||
| ScopedNoAliasAA.cpp | ||
| SparsePropagation.cpp | ||
| StratifiedSets.h | ||
| TargetLibraryInfo.cpp | ||
| TargetTransformInfo.cpp | ||
| Trace.cpp | ||
| TypeBasedAliasAnalysis.cpp | ||
| ValueTracking.cpp | ||
Analysis Opportunities:
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
In test/Transforms/LoopStrengthReduce/quadradic-exit-value.ll, the
ScalarEvolution expression for %r is this:
{1,+,3,+,2}<loop>
Outside the loop, this could be evaluated simply as (%n * %n), however
ScalarEvolution currently evaluates it as
(-2 + (2 * (trunc i65 (((zext i64 (-2 + %n) to i65) * (zext i64 (-1 + %n) to i65)) /u 2) to i64)) + (3 * %n))
In addition to being much more complicated, it involves i65 arithmetic,
which is very inefficient when expanded into code.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
In formatValue in test/CodeGen/X86/lsr-delayed-fold.ll,
ScalarEvolution is forming this expression:
((trunc i64 (-1 * %arg5) to i32) + (trunc i64 %arg5 to i32) + (-1 * (trunc i64 undef to i32)))
This could be folded to
(-1 * (trunc i64 undef to i32))
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//