From: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
To: Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Pinski <apinski@marvell.com>, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PHIOPT: Improve replace_phi_edge_with_variable for diamond shapped bb
Date: Wed, 3 May 2023 11:57:01 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFiYyc3zEd7AJ_zz+PNA3Vdo_LkW5vkKMQHc2CGW-DrMVR0pfQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+=Sn1mT3rRfF-Ne9Vv=HEz-VrBSgg3WAXHihS3tpwxstxY6Dg@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 8:28 AM Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 11:14 PM Richard Biener
> <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 12:04 AM Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 5:26 AM Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
> > > <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Apr 30, 2023 at 11:14 PM Andrew Pinski via Gcc-patches
> > > > <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > While looking at differences between what minmax_replacement
> > > > > and match_simplify_replacement does. I noticed that they sometimes
> > > > > chose different edges to remove. I decided we should be able to do
> > > > > better and be able to remove both empty basic blocks in the
> > > > > case of match_simplify_replacement as that moves the statements.
> > > > >
> > > > > This also updates the testcases as now match_simplify_replacement
> > > > > will remove the unused MIN/MAX_EXPR and they were checking for
> > > > > those.
> > > > >
> > > > > OK? Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-linux-gnu with no regressions.
> > > > >
> > > > > gcc/ChangeLog:
> > > > >
> > > > > * tree-ssa-phiopt.cc (copy_phi_args): New function.
> > > > > (replace_phi_edge_with_variable): Handle diamond form bb
> > > > > with forwarder only empty blocks better.
> > > > >
> > > > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> > > > >
> > > > > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-15.c: Update test.
> > > > > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-16.c: Update test.
> > > > > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-3.c: Update test.
> > > > > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-4.c: Update test.
> > > > > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-5.c: Update test.
> > > > > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-8.c: Update test.
> > > > > ---
> > > > > gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-15.c | 3 +-
> > > > > gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-16.c | 9 ++--
> > > > > gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-3.c | 2 +-
> > > > > gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-4.c | 2 +-
> > > > > gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-5.c | 2 +-
> > > > > gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-8.c | 2 +-
> > > > > gcc/tree-ssa-phiopt.cc | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > > > > 7 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-15.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-15.c
> > > > > index 8a39871c938..6731f91e6c3 100644
> > > > > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-15.c
> > > > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-15.c
> > > > > @@ -30,5 +30,6 @@ main (void)
> > > > > return 0;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > -/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "MIN_EXPR" 3 "phiopt1" } } */
> > > > > +/* There should only be two MIN_EXPR left, the 3rd one was removed. */
> > > > > +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "MIN_EXPR" 2 "phiopt1" } } */
> > > > > /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "MAX_EXPR" 0 "phiopt1" } } */
> > > > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-16.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-16.c
> > > > > index 623b12b3f74..094364e6424 100644
> > > > > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-16.c
> > > > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-16.c
> > > > > @@ -25,11 +25,8 @@ main (void)
> > > > > return 0;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > -/* After phiopt1, there really should be only 3 MIN_EXPR in the IR (including debug statements).
> > > > > - But the way phiopt does not cleanup the CFG all the time, the PHI might still reference the
> > > > > - alternative bb's moved statement.
> > > > > - Note in the end, we do dce the statement and other debug statements to end up with only 2 MIN_EXPR.
> > > > > - So check that too. */
> > > > > -/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "MIN_EXPR" 4 "phiopt1" } } */
> > > > > +/* After phiopt1, will be only 2 MIN_EXPR in the IR (including debug statements). */
> > > > > +/* xk will only have the final result so the extra debug info does not change anything. */
> > > > > +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "MIN_EXPR" 2 "phiopt1" } } */
> > > > > /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "MIN_EXPR" 2 "optimized" } } */
> > > > > /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "MAX_EXPR" 0 "phiopt1" } } */
> > > > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-3.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-3.c
> > > > > index 2af10776346..521afe3e4d9 100644
> > > > > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-3.c
> > > > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-3.c
> > > > > @@ -25,5 +25,5 @@ main (void)
> > > > > return 0;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > -/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "MIN_EXPR" 3 "phiopt1" } } */
> > > > > +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "MIN_EXPR" 2 "phiopt1" } } */
> > > > > /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "MAX_EXPR" 0 "phiopt1" } } */
> > > > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-4.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-4.c
> > > > > index 973f39bfed3..49e27185b5e 100644
> > > > > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-4.c
> > > > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-4.c
> > > > > @@ -26,4 +26,4 @@ main (void)
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "MIN_EXPR" 0 "phiopt1" } } */
> > > > > -/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "MAX_EXPR" 3 "phiopt1" } } */
> > > > > +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "MAX_EXPR" 2 "phiopt1" } } */
> > > > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-5.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-5.c
> > > > > index 34e4e720511..194c881cc98 100644
> > > > > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-5.c
> > > > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-5.c
> > > > > @@ -25,5 +25,5 @@ main (void)
> > > > > return 0;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > -/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "MIN_EXPR" 2 "phiopt1" } } */
> > > > > +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "MIN_EXPR" 1 "phiopt1" } } */
> > > > > /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "MAX_EXPR" 1 "phiopt1" } } */
> > > > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-8.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-8.c
> > > > > index 0160e573fef..d5cb53145ea 100644
> > > > > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-8.c
> > > > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-8.c
> > > > > @@ -26,4 +26,4 @@ main (void)
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "MIN_EXPR" 1 "phiopt1" } } */
> > > > > -/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "MAX_EXPR" 2 "phiopt1" } } */
> > > > > +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "MAX_EXPR" 1 "phiopt1" } } */
> > > > > diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-phiopt.cc b/gcc/tree-ssa-phiopt.cc
> > > > > index 65b3deea34a..311423efeb5 100644
> > > > > --- a/gcc/tree-ssa-phiopt.cc
> > > > > +++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-phiopt.cc
> > > > > @@ -82,6 +82,25 @@ single_non_singleton_phi_for_edges (gimple_seq seq, edge e0, edge e1)
> > > > > return phi;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > +/* For each PHI in BB, copy the argument associated with SRC_E to TGT_E. */
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static void
> > > > > +copy_phi_args (basic_block bb, edge src_e, edge tgt_e)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + gphi_iterator gsi;
> > > > > + int src_indx = src_e->dest_idx;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + for (gsi = gsi_start_phis (bb); !gsi_end_p (gsi); gsi_next (&gsi))
> > > > > + {
> > > > > + gphi *phi = gsi.phi ();
> > > > > + tree def = gimple_phi_arg_def (phi, src_indx);
> > > > > + location_t locus = gimple_phi_arg_location (phi, src_indx);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + add_phi_arg (phi, def, tgt_e, locus);
> > > > > + }
> > > > > +}
> > > >
> > > > Doesn't flush_pending_stmts (tgt_e) do this?
> > >
> > > No, In fact the above code is very similar to the code from
> > > remove_forwarder_block in tree-cfgcleanup.cc (I copied it and changed
> > > it from copy_phi_args in tree-ssa-threadupdate.cc though as I don't
> > > need a mapping).
> > > Let me factor out the code from remove_forwarder_block and put it in
> > > some common spot and then use that; it will be the same logic even.
> >
> > Hmm, but it's odd - if you redirect an edge on GIMPLE then there should
> > be helpers available to do all this. I think you're doing something wrong
> > (without actually looking too close)
>
> Maybe some (crude) diagrams are needed to explain why we need to copy
> the entries for the phi nodes from one edge to another.
>
> So the original BB structure is:
>
> BB
> /e1 \e2
> BB1 BB2
> \e3 /e4
> BB3
> BB3 has a few phi nodes (except for one of the phi nodes, the entries
> for BB1, BB2 are all the same).
> When you redirect e1 (or e2) to BB3, we create new entries in the phi
> nodes for that edge now as it was not there before.
> So the shape is:
> BB
> |e1 (or e2)
> BB3
>
> but since it is a new entry in the PHI node, it will be a nullptr. So
> we need to copy them from the e3 or e4 entries.
> Does that make sense on why the new function is needed here? This is
> not a normal operation done by any other pass either.
Hmm, OK. So why can you elide BB1 here? Indeed the SSA redirect_edge
hook only picks the PHI args from the original destination, it would be probably
more "natural" to redirect the e3 source to BB (redirect_edge_pred)
and remove the e1 edge?
That said, properly "decomposing" this CFG manipulation would be nice.
> An example of where this API is used in is remove_forwarder_block is
> doing something similar but instead of 4 BB, it only has 3:
> BB
> | e1
> BBF (empty forward BB)
> | e2
> BB2
> So it redirects e1 to BB2 (bypassing BBF) and the phi nodes need to be
> copied from e2.
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew
>
>
> >
> > Richard.
> >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Andrew
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > +
> > > > > +
> > > > > /* Replace PHI node element whose edge is E in block BB with variable NEW.
> > > > > Remove the edge from COND_BLOCK which does not lead to BB (COND_BLOCK
> > > > > is known to have two edges, one of which must reach BB). */
> > > > > @@ -94,6 +113,7 @@ replace_phi_edge_with_variable (basic_block cond_block,
> > > > > basic_block bb = gimple_bb (phi);
> > > > > gimple_stmt_iterator gsi;
> > > > > tree phi_result = PHI_RESULT (phi);
> > > > > + bool deleteboth = false;
> > > > >
> > > > > /* Duplicate range info if they are the only things setting the target PHI.
> > > > > This is needed as later on, the new_tree will be replacing
> > > > > @@ -137,7 +157,14 @@ replace_phi_edge_with_variable (basic_block cond_block,
> > > > > keep_edge = EDGE_SUCC (cond_block, 1);
> > > > > }
> > > > > else if ((keep_edge = find_edge (cond_block, e->src)))
> > > > > - ;
> > > > > + {
> > > > > + basic_block bb1 = EDGE_SUCC (cond_block, 0)->dest;
> > > > > + basic_block bb2 = EDGE_SUCC (cond_block, 1)->dest;
> > > > > + if (single_pred_p (bb1) && single_pred_p (bb2)
> > > > > + && single_succ_p (bb1) && single_succ_p (bb2)
> > > > > + && empty_block_p (bb1) && empty_block_p (bb2))
> > > > > + deleteboth = true;
> > > > > + }
> > > > > else
> > > > > gcc_unreachable ();
> > > > >
> > > > > @@ -148,6 +175,28 @@ replace_phi_edge_with_variable (basic_block cond_block,
> > > > > e->probability = profile_probability::always ();
> > > > > delete_basic_block (edge_to_remove->dest);
> > > > >
> > > > > + /* Eliminate the COND_EXPR at the end of COND_BLOCK. */
> > > > > + gsi = gsi_last_bb (cond_block);
> > > > > + gsi_remove (&gsi, true);
> > > > > + }
> > > > > + else if (deleteboth)
> > > > > + {
> > > > > + basic_block bb1 = EDGE_SUCC (cond_block, 0)->dest;
> > > > > + basic_block bb2 = EDGE_SUCC (cond_block, 1)->dest;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + edge newedge = redirect_edge_and_branch (keep_edge, bb);
> > > > > + /* no new edge should be the same. */
> > > > > + gcc_assert (newedge == keep_edge);
> > > > > + keep_edge->flags |= EDGE_FALLTHRU;
> > > > > + keep_edge->flags &= ~(EDGE_TRUE_VALUE | EDGE_FALSE_VALUE);
> > > > > + keep_edge->probability = profile_probability::always ();
> > > > > + /* Copy the edge's phi entry from the old one */
> > > > > + copy_phi_args(bb, e, keep_edge);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /* Delete the old 2 empty basic blocks */
> > > > > + delete_basic_block (bb1);
> > > > > + delete_basic_block (bb2);
> > > > > +
> > > > > /* Eliminate the COND_EXPR at the end of COND_BLOCK. */
> > > > > gsi = gsi_last_bb (cond_block);
> > > > > gsi_remove (&gsi, true);
> > > > > --
> > > > > 2.31.1
> > > > >
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-03 9:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-04-30 21:13 Andrew Pinski
2023-05-02 12:23 ` Richard Biener
2023-05-02 22:04 ` Andrew Pinski
2023-05-03 6:14 ` Richard Biener
2023-05-03 6:27 ` Andrew Pinski
2023-05-03 6:36 ` Jeff Law
2023-05-03 6:43 ` Andrew Pinski
2023-05-03 9:57 ` Richard Biener [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAFiYyc3zEd7AJ_zz+PNA3Vdo_LkW5vkKMQHc2CGW-DrMVR0pfQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
--cc=apinski@marvell.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=pinskia@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).