[LLVMdev] AliasAnalysis update interface - a tale of sorrow and woe (original) (raw)

Daniel Berlin dberlin at dberlin.org
Thu Jul 2 15:31:52 PDT 2015

The vast majority of stateful AA probably doesn't/won't care about the vast majority of updates.

For example, unless globalsmodref is going to recompute the transitive closure, it can't actually give better than "i don't know" answers in most cases, which is equivalent to telling it "you should delete this pointer and pretend you know nothing about it". Humorously, you can see that's what it did with addEscapingUse. It deleted anything it knew about the pointer.

Further, once that delete has happened once, there is no point in ever tracking anything about that value ever again for globalsmodref. It will never regain that info.

Even for those that do care, there are other issues: The AA may never be queried again. Or the IR may change 6 or 7 times before it gets queried again. The only thing any AA needs to know in general is "what is the net result of those changes" (IE added uses, etc). For example, if you were to add and then remove a use before querying AA, no AA will care. Telling it an add and then remove is not only pointless and expensive, it is probably worse than telling it "nothing happened" (which is the net effect).

In any case, i think we need to sit down and think "which of these AA's do we want to cache/make stateful, and how". Because the original use case for building a stateful API, from what i can tell, is globalsmodref. This is not a great use case, since incremental updating may require a complete callgraph walk. That seems like a non-starter :-)

Nowadays, i expect the stateful use cases are more like "caching CFL-AA or caching expensive parts of BasicAA" (both of which are O(pointer chain) to update incrementally). Even andersen's can be incrementally computed quicker in practice (For additional uses, delete variable from sets, add new constraints, fixpoint. In most cases, you can prove the new constraint doesn't change the results, so you do nothing. Or it takes one iteration of propagation. Worst case is N^3 like the callgraph walk, but in practice, it's probably closer to O(pointer chain))

On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Pete Cooper <peter_cooper at apple.com> wrote:

On Jul 2, 2015, at 1:17 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: I should add that I'm somewhat afraid, however, of the compile-time implications of adding the necessary hook. I was just going to say this myself. In fact, even if you don’t add a hook for tracking new values, just using value handles in AA could prove to be expensive. A typical optimized piece of code has more load instructions than binary instructions. If you only cached loads with value handles, you’re already creating a huge number of handles, and these are currently entries in a map (pImpl->ValueHandles[V] if you’re curious). TL;DR: If we are going to create this many value handles, we should strongly consider finding a way to represent them more cheaply. Cheers, Pete

LLVM Developers mailing list LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list