Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[FuncSpec] Update function specialization to handle phi-chains #71442

Closed
wants to merge 8 commits into from

Conversation

Leporacanthicus
Copy link
Contributor

When using the LLVM flang compiler with alias analysis (AA) enabled, SPEC2017:548.exchange2_r was running significantly slower than wihtout the AA.

This was caused by the GVN pass replacing many of the loads in the pre-AA code with phi-nodes that form a long chain of dependencies, which the function specialization was unable to follow.

This adds a function to follow phi-nodes when they are a strongly connected component, with some limitations to avoid spending ages analysing phi-nodes.

The minimum latency savings also had to be lowered - fewer load instructions means less saving.

Adding some more prints to help debugging the isProfitable decision.

No significant change in compile time or generated code-size.

When using the LLVM flang compiler with alias analysis (AA) enabled,
SPEC2017:548.exchange2_r was running significantly slower than
wihtout the AA.

This was caused by the GVN pass replacing many of the loads in the
pre-AA code with phi-nodes that form a long chain of dependencies,
which the function specialization was unable to follow.

This adds a function to follow phi-nodes when they are a strongly
connected component, with some limitations to avoid spending ages
analysing phi-nodes.

The minimum latency savings also had to be lowered - fewer load
instructions means less saving.

Adding some more prints to help debugging the isProfitable decision.

No significant change in compile time or generated code-size.

Co-authored-by: Alexandros Lamprineas <[email protected]>
@llvmbot
Copy link

llvmbot commented Nov 6, 2023

@llvm/pr-subscribers-function-specialization

@llvm/pr-subscribers-llvm-transforms

Author: Mats Petersson (Leporacanthicus)

Changes

When using the LLVM flang compiler with alias analysis (AA) enabled, SPEC2017:548.exchange2_r was running significantly slower than wihtout the AA.

This was caused by the GVN pass replacing many of the loads in the pre-AA code with phi-nodes that form a long chain of dependencies, which the function specialization was unable to follow.

This adds a function to follow phi-nodes when they are a strongly connected component, with some limitations to avoid spending ages analysing phi-nodes.

The minimum latency savings also had to be lowered - fewer load instructions means less saving.

Adding some more prints to help debugging the isProfitable decision.

No significant change in compile time or generated code-size.


Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/71442.diff

3 Files Affected:

  • (modified) llvm/include/llvm/Transforms/IPO/FunctionSpecialization.h (+4)
  • (modified) llvm/lib/Transforms/IPO/FunctionSpecialization.cpp (+107-26)
  • (added) llvm/test/Transforms/FunctionSpecialization/discover-strongly-connected-phis.ll (+87)
diff --git a/llvm/include/llvm/Transforms/IPO/FunctionSpecialization.h b/llvm/include/llvm/Transforms/IPO/FunctionSpecialization.h
index 50f9aae73dc53e2..f35543cb8411b35 100644
--- a/llvm/include/llvm/Transforms/IPO/FunctionSpecialization.h
+++ b/llvm/include/llvm/Transforms/IPO/FunctionSpecialization.h
@@ -183,6 +183,8 @@ class InstCostVisitor : public InstVisitor<InstCostVisitor, Constant *> {
   DenseSet<BasicBlock *> DeadBlocks;
   // PHI nodes we have visited before.
   DenseSet<Instruction *> VisitedPHIs;
+  // PHI nodes forming a strongly connected component.
+  DenseSet<PHINode *> StronglyConnectedPHIs;
   // PHI nodes we have visited once without successfully constant folding them.
   // Once the InstCostVisitor has processed all the specialization arguments,
   // it should be possible to determine whether those PHIs can be folded
@@ -217,6 +219,8 @@ class InstCostVisitor : public InstVisitor<InstCostVisitor, Constant *> {
   Cost estimateSwitchInst(SwitchInst &I);
   Cost estimateBranchInst(BranchInst &I);
 
+  void discoverStronglyConnectedComponent(PHINode *PN, unsigned Depth);
+
   Constant *visitInstruction(Instruction &I) { return nullptr; }
   Constant *visitPHINode(PHINode &I);
   Constant *visitFreezeInst(FreezeInst &I);
diff --git a/llvm/lib/Transforms/IPO/FunctionSpecialization.cpp b/llvm/lib/Transforms/IPO/FunctionSpecialization.cpp
index b75ca7761a60b62..23e665a1901b5e1 100644
--- a/llvm/lib/Transforms/IPO/FunctionSpecialization.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/Transforms/IPO/FunctionSpecialization.cpp
@@ -39,10 +39,15 @@ static cl::opt<unsigned> MaxClones(
     "The maximum number of clones allowed for a single function "
     "specialization"));
 
+static cl::opt<unsigned> MaxDiscoveryDepth(
+    "funcspec-max-discovery-depth", cl::init(10), cl::Hidden,
+    cl::desc("The maximum recursion depth allowed when searching for strongly "
+             "connected phis"));
+
 static cl::opt<unsigned> MaxIncomingPhiValues(
-    "funcspec-max-incoming-phi-values", cl::init(4), cl::Hidden, cl::desc(
-    "The maximum number of incoming values a PHI node can have to be "
-    "considered during the specialization bonus estimation"));
+    "funcspec-max-incoming-phi-values", cl::init(8), cl::Hidden,
+    cl::desc("The maximum number of incoming values a PHI node can have to be "
+             "considered during the specialization bonus estimation"));
 
 static cl::opt<unsigned> MaxBlockPredecessors(
     "funcspec-max-block-predecessors", cl::init(2), cl::Hidden, cl::desc(
@@ -64,9 +69,9 @@ static cl::opt<unsigned> MinCodeSizeSavings(
     "much percent of the original function size"));
 
 static cl::opt<unsigned> MinLatencySavings(
-    "funcspec-min-latency-savings", cl::init(70), cl::Hidden, cl::desc(
-    "Reject specializations whose latency savings are less than this"
-    "much percent of the original function size"));
+    "funcspec-min-latency-savings", cl::init(45), cl::Hidden,
+    cl::desc("Reject specializations whose latency savings are less than this"
+             "much percent of the original function size"));
 
 static cl::opt<unsigned> MinInliningBonus(
     "funcspec-min-inlining-bonus", cl::init(300), cl::Hidden, cl::desc(
@@ -262,30 +267,86 @@ Cost InstCostVisitor::estimateBranchInst(BranchInst &I) {
   return estimateBasicBlocks(WorkList);
 }
 
+void InstCostVisitor::discoverStronglyConnectedComponent(PHINode *PN,
+                                                         unsigned Depth) {
+  if (Depth > MaxDiscoveryDepth)
+    return;
+
+  if (PN->getNumIncomingValues() > MaxIncomingPhiValues)
+    return;
+
+  if (!StronglyConnectedPHIs.insert(PN).second)
+    return;
+
+  for (unsigned I = 0, E = PN->getNumIncomingValues(); I != E; ++I) {
+    Value *V = PN->getIncomingValue(I);
+    if (auto *Phi = dyn_cast<PHINode>(V)) {
+      if (Phi == PN || DeadBlocks.contains(PN->getIncomingBlock(I)))
+        continue;
+      discoverStronglyConnectedComponent(Phi, Depth + 1);
+    }
+  }
+}
+
 Constant *InstCostVisitor::visitPHINode(PHINode &I) {
   if (I.getNumIncomingValues() > MaxIncomingPhiValues)
     return nullptr;
 
   bool Inserted = VisitedPHIs.insert(&I).second;
   Constant *Const = nullptr;
+  SmallVector<PHINode *, 8> UnknownIncomingValues;
 
-  for (unsigned Idx = 0, E = I.getNumIncomingValues(); Idx != E; ++Idx) {
-    Value *V = I.getIncomingValue(Idx);
-    if (auto *Inst = dyn_cast<Instruction>(V))
-      if (Inst == &I || DeadBlocks.contains(I.getIncomingBlock(Idx)))
-        continue;
-    Constant *C = findConstantFor(V, KnownConstants);
-    if (!C) {
-      if (Inserted)
-        PendingPHIs.push_back(&I);
-      return nullptr;
+  auto CanConstantFoldPhi = [&](PHINode *PN) -> bool {
+    UnknownIncomingValues.clear();
+
+    for (unsigned I = 0, E = PN->getNumIncomingValues(); I != E; ++I) {
+      Value *V = PN->getIncomingValue(I);
+
+      // Disregard self-references and dead incoming values.
+      if (auto *Inst = dyn_cast<Instruction>(V))
+        if (Inst == PN || DeadBlocks.contains(PN->getIncomingBlock(I)))
+          continue;
+
+      if (Constant *C = findConstantFor(V, KnownConstants)) {
+        if (!Const)
+          Const = C;
+        // Not all incoming values are the same constant. Bail immediately.
+        else if (C != Const)
+          return false;
+      } else if (auto *Phi = dyn_cast<PHINode>(V)) {
+        // It's not a strongly connected phi. Collect it and bail at the end.
+        if (!StronglyConnectedPHIs.contains(Phi))
+          UnknownIncomingValues.push_back(Phi);
+      } else {
+        // We can't reason about anything else.
+        return false;
+      }
+    }
+    return UnknownIncomingValues.empty();
+  };
+
+  if (CanConstantFoldPhi(&I))
+    return Const;
+
+  if (Inserted) {
+    // First time we are seeing this phi. We'll retry later, after all
+    // the constant arguments have been propagated. Bail for now.
+    PendingPHIs.push_back(&I);
+    return nullptr;
+  }
+
+  for (PHINode *Phi : UnknownIncomingValues)
+    discoverStronglyConnectedComponent(Phi, 1);
+
+  bool CannotConstantFoldPhi = false;
+  for (PHINode *Phi : StronglyConnectedPHIs) {
+    if (!CanConstantFoldPhi(Phi)) {
+      CannotConstantFoldPhi = true;
+      break;
     }
-    if (!Const)
-      Const = C;
-    else if (C != Const)
-      return nullptr;
   }
-  return Const;
+  StronglyConnectedPHIs.clear();
+  return CannotConstantFoldPhi ? nullptr : Const;
 }
 
 Constant *InstCostVisitor::visitFreezeInst(FreezeInst &I) {
@@ -809,20 +870,40 @@ bool FunctionSpecializer::findSpecializations(Function *F, unsigned FuncSize,
       auto IsProfitable = [](Bonus &B, unsigned Score, unsigned FuncSize,
                              unsigned FuncGrowth) -> bool {
         // No check required.
-        if (ForceSpecialization)
+        if (ForceSpecialization) {
+          LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "Force is on\n");
           return true;
+        }
         // Minimum inlining bonus.
-        if (Score > MinInliningBonus * FuncSize / 100)
+        if (Score > MinInliningBonus * FuncSize / 100) {
+          LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs()
+                     << "FnSpecialization: Min inliningbous: Score = " << Score
+                     << " > " << MinInliningBonus * FuncSize / 100 << "\n");
           return true;
+        }
         // Minimum codesize savings.
-        if (B.CodeSize < MinCodeSizeSavings * FuncSize / 100)
+        if (B.CodeSize < MinCodeSizeSavings * FuncSize / 100) {
+          LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs()
+                     << "FnSpecialization: Min CodeSize Saving: CodeSize = "
+                     << B.CodeSize << " > "
+                     << MinCodeSizeSavings * FuncSize / 100 << "\n");
           return false;
+        }
         // Minimum latency savings.
-        if (B.Latency < MinLatencySavings * FuncSize / 100)
+        if (B.Latency < MinLatencySavings * FuncSize / 100) {
+          LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs()
+                     << "FnSpecialization: Min Latency Saving: Latency = "
+                     << B.Latency << " > " << MinLatencySavings * FuncSize / 100
+                     << "\n");
           return false;
+        }
         // Maximum codesize growth.
-        if (FuncGrowth / FuncSize > MaxCodeSizeGrowth)
+        if (FuncGrowth / FuncSize > MaxCodeSizeGrowth) {
+          LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "FnSpecialization: Max Func Growth: CodeSize = "
+                            << FuncGrowth / FuncSize << " > "
+                            << MaxCodeSizeGrowth << "\n");
           return false;
+        }
         return true;
       };
 
diff --git a/llvm/test/Transforms/FunctionSpecialization/discover-strongly-connected-phis.ll b/llvm/test/Transforms/FunctionSpecialization/discover-strongly-connected-phis.ll
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000000..3463ddb6f066de8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/llvm/test/Transforms/FunctionSpecialization/discover-strongly-connected-phis.ll
@@ -0,0 +1,87 @@
+; NOTE: Assertions have been autogenerated by utils/update_test_checks.py
+;
+; RUN: opt -passes="ipsccp<func-spec>" -funcspec-min-function-size=20 -funcspec-for-literal-constant -S < %s | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=FUNCSPEC
+; RUN: opt -passes="ipsccp<func-spec>" -funcspec-min-function-size=20 -funcspec-for-literal-constant -funcspec-max-discovery-depth=5 -S < %s | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=NOFUNCSPEC
+
+define i64 @bar(i1 %c1, i1 %c2, i1 %c3, i1 %c4, i1 %c5, i1 %c6, i1 %c7, i1 %c8, i1 %c9, i1 %c10) {
+; FUNCSPEC-LABEL: define i64 @bar(
+; FUNCSPEC-SAME: i1 [[C1:%.*]], i1 [[C2:%.*]], i1 [[C3:%.*]], i1 [[C4:%.*]], i1 [[C5:%.*]], i1 [[C6:%.*]], i1 [[C7:%.*]], i1 [[C8:%.*]], i1 [[C9:%.*]], i1 [[C10:%.*]]) {
+; FUNCSPEC-NEXT:  entry:
+; FUNCSPEC-NEXT:    [[F1:%.*]] = call i64 @foo.specialized.1(i64 3, i1 [[C1]], i1 [[C2]], i1 [[C3]], i1 [[C4]], i1 [[C5]], i1 [[C6]], i1 [[C7]], i1 [[C8]], i1 [[C9]], i1 [[C10]]), !range [[RNG0:![0-9]+]]
+; FUNCSPEC-NEXT:    [[F2:%.*]] = call i64 @foo.specialized.2(i64 4, i1 [[C1]], i1 [[C2]], i1 [[C3]], i1 [[C4]], i1 [[C5]], i1 [[C6]], i1 [[C7]], i1 [[C8]], i1 [[C9]], i1 [[C10]]), !range [[RNG1:![0-9]+]]
+; FUNCSPEC-NEXT:    [[ADD:%.*]] = add nuw nsw i64 [[F1]], [[F2]]
+; FUNCSPEC-NEXT:    ret i64 [[ADD]]
+;
+; NOFUNCSPEC-LABEL: define i64 @bar(
+; NOFUNCSPEC-SAME: i1 [[C1:%.*]], i1 [[C2:%.*]], i1 [[C3:%.*]], i1 [[C4:%.*]], i1 [[C5:%.*]], i1 [[C6:%.*]], i1 [[C7:%.*]], i1 [[C8:%.*]], i1 [[C9:%.*]], i1 [[C10:%.*]]) {
+; NOFUNCSPEC-NEXT:  entry:
+; NOFUNCSPEC-NEXT:    [[F1:%.*]] = call i64 @foo(i64 3, i1 [[C1]], i1 [[C2]], i1 [[C3]], i1 [[C4]], i1 [[C5]], i1 [[C6]], i1 [[C7]], i1 [[C8]], i1 [[C9]], i1 [[C10]]), !range [[RNG0:![0-9]+]]
+; NOFUNCSPEC-NEXT:    [[F2:%.*]] = call i64 @foo(i64 4, i1 [[C1]], i1 [[C2]], i1 [[C3]], i1 [[C4]], i1 [[C5]], i1 [[C6]], i1 [[C7]], i1 [[C8]], i1 [[C9]], i1 [[C10]]), !range [[RNG0]]
+; NOFUNCSPEC-NEXT:    [[ADD:%.*]] = add nuw nsw i64 [[F1]], [[F2]]
+; NOFUNCSPEC-NEXT:    ret i64 [[ADD]]
+;
+entry:
+  %f1 = call i64 @foo(i64 3, i1 %c1, i1 %c2, i1 %c3, i1 %c4, i1 %c5, i1 %c6, i1 %c7, i1 %c8, i1 %c9, i1 %c10)
+  %f2 = call i64 @foo(i64 4, i1 %c1, i1 %c2, i1 %c3, i1 %c4, i1 %c5, i1 %c6, i1 %c7, i1 %c8, i1 %c9, i1 %c10)
+  %add = add i64 %f1, %f2
+  ret i64 %add
+}
+
+define internal i64 @foo(i64 %n, i1 %c1, i1 %c2, i1 %c3, i1 %c4, i1 %c5, i1 %c6, i1 %c7, i1 %c8, i1 %c9, i1 %c10) {
+entry:
+  br i1 %c1, label %l1, label %l9
+
+l1:
+  %phi1 = phi i64 [ %n, %entry ], [ %phi2, %l2 ]
+  %add = add i64 %phi1, 1
+  %div = sdiv i64 %add, 2
+  br i1 %c2, label %l1_5, label %exit
+
+l1_5:
+  br i1 %c3, label %l1_75, label %l6
+
+l1_75:
+  br i1 %c4, label %l2, label %l3
+
+l2:
+  %phi2 = phi i64 [ %phi1, %l1_75 ], [ %phi3, %l3 ]
+  br label %l1
+
+l3:
+  %phi3 = phi i64 [ %phi1, %l1_75 ], [ %phi4, %l4 ]
+  br label %l2
+
+l4:
+  %phi4 = phi i64 [ %phi5, %l5 ], [ %phi6, %l6 ]
+  br i1 %c5, label %l3, label %l6
+
+l5:
+  %phi5 = phi i64 [ %phi6, %l6_5 ], [ %phi7, %l7 ]
+  br label %l4
+
+l6:
+  %phi6 = phi i64 [ %phi4, %l4 ], [ %phi1, %l1_5 ]
+  br i1 %c6, label %l4, label %l6_5
+
+l6_5:
+  br i1 %c7, label %l5, label %l8
+
+l7:
+  %phi7 = phi i64 [ %phi9, %l9 ], [ %phi8, %l8 ]
+  br i1 %c8, label %l5, label %l8
+
+l8:
+  %phi8 = phi i64 [ %phi6, %l6_5 ], [ %phi7, %l7 ]
+  br i1 %c9, label %l7, label %l9
+
+l9:
+  %phi9 = phi i64 [ %n, %entry ], [ %phi8, %l8 ]
+  %sub = sub i64 %phi9, 1
+  %mul = mul i64 %sub, 2
+  br i1 %c10, label %l7, label %exit
+
+exit:
+  %res = phi i64 [ %div, %l1 ], [ %mul, %l9]
+  ret i64 %res
+}
+

Copy link
Contributor

@kiranchandramohan kiranchandramohan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for this patch. A few minor comments inline.

llvm/lib/Transforms/IPO/FunctionSpecialization.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
llvm/lib/Transforms/IPO/FunctionSpecialization.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Collaborator

@labrinea labrinea left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've added some inline comments about the debug output, otherwise looks fine. I would like @momchil-velikov to have a say since I have co-authored this patch. I checked the compile time impact on the llvm-test-suite, which didn't raise any concerns (same amount of specializations happening, 2 specializations in ClamAV for the O3 pipeline, 2 specializations in SPASS for the LTO pipeline; geomean was +0.028% for the O3 pipeline and +0.012% for the full LTO pipeline on x86)

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Nov 7, 2023

✅ With the latest revision this PR passed the C/C++ code formatter.

@momchil-velikov
Copy link
Collaborator

So the algorithm works like this:
We collect a (sub-)set of all the PHI nodes, reachable from the initial PHI node along the incoming value edges.
Thus we obtain the set of all the possible values that can flow into the initial PHI node.
Then we check across all the collected PHI nodes that each incoming value is either the same constant
or a PHI node that is a member of the set.

(As a side note, that does not mean the set forms a strongly connected component in the SSA graph, it could even be acyclic).

Note that the initial PHI node should also be added to the set to account for the possibility that some of the incoming values
are the initial PHI node itself.

@momchil-velikov
Copy link
Collaborator

What would be the result of an input like:

C       I
  \    /
    P

i.e. we visit the PHI node P , which has two operands, one constant C and one instruction I that is not a PHI.

As far as I can tell, the first time around we will see I and return false from CanConstantFoldPhi so we exit immediately.

Next time we again return with false from CanConstantFoldPhi with Const set to C and UnknownIncomingValues empty.
We will not perform any iterations of the loop that calls discoverStronglyConnectedComponent (line 376).
We will not perform any iterations of the loop the calls CanConstantFoldPhi (line 380).
CannotConstantFoldPhi is initialised to false, so at the return at line 387 we will return Const which has a non-null value,
set by the first call of CanConstantFoldPhi at line 364.

llvm/lib/Transforms/IPO/FunctionSpecialization.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
llvm/lib/Transforms/IPO/FunctionSpecialization.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
llvm/lib/Transforms/IPO/FunctionSpecialization.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
llvm/lib/Transforms/IPO/FunctionSpecialization.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
llvm/lib/Transforms/IPO/FunctionSpecialization.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
llvm/lib/Transforms/IPO/FunctionSpecialization.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
llvm/lib/Transforms/IPO/FunctionSpecialization.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
llvm/lib/Transforms/IPO/FunctionSpecialization.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
llvm/lib/Transforms/IPO/FunctionSpecialization.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@labrinea
Copy link
Collaborator

labrinea commented Nov 9, 2023

What would be the result of an input like:

C       I
  \    /
    P

i.e. we visit the PHI node P , which has two operands, one constant C and one instruction I that is not a PHI.

As far as I can tell, the first time around we will see I and return false from CanConstantFoldPhi so we exit immediately.

Next time we again return with false from CanConstantFoldPhi with Const set to C and UnknownIncomingValues empty. We will not perform any iterations of the loop that calls discoverStronglyConnectedComponent (line 376). We will not perform any iterations of the loop the calls CanConstantFoldPhi (line 380). CannotConstantFoldPhi is initialised to false, so at the return at line 387 we will return Const which has a non-null value, set by the first call of CanConstantFoldPhi at line 364.

I agree, the patch does not handle this case correctly as is.

@Leporacanthicus
Copy link
Contributor Author

What would be the result of an input like:

C       I
  \    /
    P

i.e. we visit the PHI node P , which has two operands, one constant C and one instruction I that is not a PHI.

As far as I can tell, the first time around we will see I and return false from CanConstantFoldPhi so we exit immediately.

Next time we again return with false from CanConstantFoldPhi with Const set to C and UnknownIncomingValues empty. We will not perform any iterations of the loop that calls discoverStronglyConnectedComponent (line 376). We will not perform any iterations of the loop the calls CanConstantFoldPhi (line 380). CannotConstantFoldPhi is initialised to false, so at the return at line 387 we will return Const which has a non-null value, set by the first call of CanConstantFoldPhi at line 364.

I will post a patch soon. I think this is solved in the new code, but I just realized a small problem.

NOTE: We need to re-write the overall commit message, as it is
not close to accurate any longer.
@Leporacanthicus
Copy link
Contributor Author

Closing this PR, a new PR at #72903

Thanks for the feedback here.

@ChuanqiXu9
Copy link
Member

Closing this PR, a new PR at #72903

Thanks for the feedback here.

Then let's try to close it actually. Feel open to reopen it if I miss understand anything.

@ChuanqiXu9 ChuanqiXu9 closed this Nov 21, 2023
Leporacanthicus added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 22, 2023
When using the LLVM flang compiler with alias analysis (AA) enabled,
SPEC2017:548.exchange2_r was running significantly slower than wihtout
the AA.

This was caused by the GVN pass replacing many of the loads in the
pre-AA code with phi-nodes that form a long chain of dependencies, which
the function specialization was unable to follow.

This adds a function to discover phi-nodes in a transitive set, with
some limitations to avoid spending ages analysing phi-nodes.

The minimum latency savings also had to be lowered - fewer load
instructions means less saving.

Adding some more prints to help debugging the isProfitable decision.

No significant change in compile time or generated code-size.

(A previous attempt to fix this was abandoned: #71442)

---------

Co-authored-by: Alexandros Lamprineas <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants