[LLVMdev] LICM for function calls (original) (raw)

Philip Reames listmail at philipreames.com
Tue Jul 14 22:27:46 PDT 2015

On 07/14/2015 10:25 PM, Hal Finkel wrote:

----- Original Message -----

From: "Philip Reames" <listmail at philipreames.com> To: "Thomas F Raoux" <thomas.f.raoux at intel.com>, llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 11:59:49 PM Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] LICM for function calls

On 07/14/2015 07:45 AM, Raoux, Thomas F wrote: Hi,

Right now in LICM (and many other transformations) we always assume it is never safe to speculatively execute a function call. The following function always return false for all function calls except for few intrinsics: bool llvm::isSafeToSpeculativelyExecute(const Value *V, const DataLayout *TD) { ... case Instruction::Call: { if (const IntrinsicInst *II = dyncast(Inst)) { ... } return false; // The called function could have undefined behavior or // side-effects, even if marked readnone nounwind. In some cases this could have an important performance impact so I'm looking for a potential way to improve it. Is there any combination of attributes which would guarantee that a function is safe to speculatively execute a function call? (As far as I can tell there isn't.) In general, no there isn't. The challenge is that a function's attributes can be control dependent. For example, you can have a function which is "readnone argmemonly nounwind" which writes the entire heap if the global "c" is true. Hoisting a call to such a function above "if (!c)" would be problematic. I think that in practice this is mostly an issue with call site attributes, but I believe the same conceptual problem applies to attributes on function declarations as well. I'm fairly certain we already consider declaration attributes to have no control dependencies. If true, this would be great. I wasn't sure what the rules here were and was trying to be conservative. If nothing else, we need to clarify the docs and make sure everyone is actually in agreement about this. -Hal Changing that might be reasonable, but we'd need to spec it carefully. I think there's room here for improvement, but it'll likely be a slow process at first. One area you might look into is the "guaranteed to execute" notion in LICM. This gives a basis for hoisting a call out of a loop which doesn't require speculating it past any relevant control dependence. You still have to worry about aliasing for safety, but reasoning about the semantics of attributes and faults should be a bit more straight forward. Does anybody have a suggestion on what would be the best way to implement such functionality? Or do you think such optimization is undesirable? Cheers, Thomas

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

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