From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 1888) id 4B9C2385782D; Mon, 2 Aug 2021 14:05:16 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 4B9C2385782D MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" From: Patrick Palka To: gcc-cvs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [gcc r12-2658] c++: Improve memory usage of subsumption [PR100828] X-Act-Checkin: gcc X-Git-Author: Patrick Palka X-Git-Refname: refs/heads/master X-Git-Oldrev: f9fcf754825a1e01033336f84c18690aaa971a6f X-Git-Newrev: f48c3cd2e3f9cd9e3c329eb2d3185bd26e7c7607 Message-Id: <20210802140516.4B9C2385782D@sourceware.org> Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2021 14:05:16 +0000 (GMT) X-BeenThere: gcc-cvs@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-cvs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2021 14:05:16 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f48c3cd2e3f9cd9e3c329eb2d3185bd26e7c7607 commit r12-2658-gf48c3cd2e3f9cd9e3c329eb2d3185bd26e7c7607 Author: Patrick Palka Date: Mon Aug 2 09:59:56 2021 -0400 c++: Improve memory usage of subsumption [PR100828] Constraint subsumption is implemented in two steps. The first step computes the disjunctive (or conjunctive) normal form of one of the constraints, and the second step verifies that each clause in the decomposed form implies the other constraint. Performing these two steps separately is problematic because in the first step the DNF/CNF can be exponentially larger than the original constraint, and by computing it ahead of time we'd have to keep all of it in memory. This patch fixes this exponential blowup in memory usage by interleaving the two steps, so that as soon as we decompose one clause we check implication for it. In turn, memory usage during subsumption is now worst case linear in the size of the constraints rather than exponential, and so we can safely remove the hard limit of 16 clauses without introducing runaway memory usage on some inputs. (Note the _time_ complexity of subsumption is still exponential in the worst case.) In order for this to work we need to make formula::branch() insert the copy of the current clause directly after the current clause rather than at the end of the list, so that we fully decompose a clause shortly after creating it. Otherwise we'd end up accumulating exponentially many (partially decomposed) clauses in memory anyway. PR c++/100828 gcc/cp/ChangeLog: * logic.cc (formula::formula): Use emplace_back instead of push_back. (formula::branch): Insert a copy of m_current directly after m_current instead of at the end of the list. (formula::erase): Define. (decompose_formula): Remove. (decompose_antecedents): Remove. (decompose_consequents): Remove. (derive_proofs): Remove. (max_problem_size): Remove. (diagnose_constraint_size): Remove. (subsumes_constraints_nonnull): Rewrite directly in terms of decompose_clause and derive_proof, interleaving decomposition with implication checking. Remove limit on constraint complexity. Use formula::erase to free the current clause before moving on to the next one. Diff: --- gcc/cp/logic.cc | 118 +++++++++++++++++--------------------------------------- 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 83 deletions(-) diff --git a/gcc/cp/logic.cc b/gcc/cp/logic.cc index 142457e408a..9d892b1473b 100644 --- a/gcc/cp/logic.cc +++ b/gcc/cp/logic.cc @@ -223,9 +223,7 @@ struct formula formula (tree t) { - /* This should call emplace_back(). There's an extra copy being - invoked by using push_back(). */ - m_clauses.push_back (t); + m_clauses.emplace_back (t); m_current = m_clauses.begin (); } @@ -248,8 +246,7 @@ struct formula clause& branch () { gcc_assert (!done ()); - m_clauses.push_back (*m_current); - return m_clauses.back (); + return *m_clauses.insert (std::next (m_current), *m_current); } /* Returns the position of the current clause. */ @@ -287,6 +284,14 @@ struct formula return m_clauses.end (); } + /* Remove the specified clause from the formula. */ + + void erase (iterator i) + { + gcc_assert (i != m_current); + m_clauses.erase (i); + } + std::list m_clauses; /* The list of clauses. */ iterator m_current; /* The current clause. */ }; @@ -659,39 +664,6 @@ decompose_clause (formula& f, clause& c, rules r) f.advance (); } -/* Decompose the logical formula F according to the logical - rules determined by R. The result is a formula containing - clauses that contain only atomic terms. */ - -void -decompose_formula (formula& f, rules r) -{ - while (!f.done ()) - decompose_clause (f, *f.current (), r); -} - -/* Fully decomposing T into a list of sequents, each comprised of - a list of atomic constraints, as if T were an antecedent. */ - -static formula -decompose_antecedents (tree t) -{ - formula f (t); - decompose_formula (f, left); - return f; -} - -/* Fully decomposing T into a list of sequents, each comprised of - a list of atomic constraints, as if T were a consequent. */ - -static formula -decompose_consequents (tree t) -{ - formula f (t); - decompose_formula (f, right); - return f; -} - static bool derive_proof (clause&, tree, rules); /* Derive a proof of both operands of T. */ @@ -744,28 +716,6 @@ derive_proof (clause& c, tree t, rules r) } } -/* Derive a proof of T from disjunctive clauses in F. */ - -static bool -derive_proofs (formula& f, tree t, rules r) -{ - for (formula::iterator i = f.begin(); i != f.end(); ++i) - if (!derive_proof (*i, t, r)) - return false; - return true; -} - -/* The largest number of clauses in CNF or DNF we accept as input - for subsumption. This an upper bound of 2^16 expressions. */ -static int max_problem_size = 16; - -static inline bool -diagnose_constraint_size (tree t) -{ - error_at (input_location, "%qE exceeds the maximum constraint complexity", t); - return false; -} - /* Key/value pair for caching subsumption results. This associates a pair of constraints with a boolean value indicating the result. */ @@ -845,31 +795,33 @@ subsumes_constraints_nonnull (tree lhs, tree rhs) if (bool *b = lookup_subsumption(lhs, rhs)) return *b; - int n1 = dnf_size (lhs); - int n2 = cnf_size (rhs); - - /* Make sure we haven't exceeded the largest acceptable problem. */ - if (std::min (n1, n2) >= max_problem_size) - { - if (n1 < n2) - diagnose_constraint_size (lhs); - else - diagnose_constraint_size (rhs); - return false; - } - - /* Decompose the smaller of the two formulas, and recursively - check for implication of the larger. */ - bool result; - if (n1 <= n2) - { - formula dnf = decompose_antecedents (lhs); - result = derive_proofs (dnf, rhs, left); - } + tree x, y; + rules r; + if (dnf_size (lhs) <= cnf_size (rhs)) + /* When LHS looks simpler than RHS, we'll determine subsumption by + decomposing LHS into its disjunctive normal form and checking that + each (conjunctive) clause in the decomposed LHS implies RHS. */ + x = lhs, y = rhs, r = left; else + /* Otherwise, we'll determine subsumption by decomposing RHS into its + conjunctive normal form and checking that each (disjunctive) clause + in the decomposed RHS implies LHS. */ + x = rhs, y = lhs, r = right; + + /* Decompose X into a list of sequents according to R, and recursively + check for implication of Y. */ + bool result = true; + formula f (x); + while (!f.done ()) { - formula cnf = decompose_consequents (rhs); - result = derive_proofs (cnf, lhs, right); + auto i = f.current (); + decompose_clause (f, *i, r); + if (!derive_proof (*i, y, r)) + { + result = false; + break; + } + f.erase (i); } return save_subsumption (lhs, rhs, result);