public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ilya Enkovich <enkovich.gnu@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>
Cc: gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, Pointer Bounds Checker 14/x] Passes [15/n] Optimize redundant checks
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 15:52:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMbmDYb0Cy0c_osyKRVp==0dQh1ni_CuGrQ6_5jcRVhXs4LK4A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5436C8DE.5020108@redhat.com>

2014-10-09 21:41 GMT+04:00 Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>:
> On 10/08/14 13:22, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> This patch adds removal of redundant (covered by other) checks into
>> checker optimization.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ilya
>> --
>> 2014-10-08  Ilya Enkovich  <ilya.enkovich@intel.com>
>>
>>         * tree-chkp.c (chkp_compare_checks): New.
>>         (chkp_remove_redundant_checks): New.
>>         (chkp_opt_execute): Run redundant checks removal
>>         algorithm.
>
>
> Wouldn't pure removal be better modeled in existing optimizers?  DOM would
> seem to be a natural fit?
>
> Similarly, isn't the swapping very similar to a reverse DOM walk DSE-like
> optimizer?
>
> Deferring further review until those questions are answered?
>
> jeff
>
>

Checks and and intersection removal code was added as a simple pass
catching trivial cases.  I'm sure there are optimizations having
common elements with what checker optimizer does.  But initially we
didn't want to adopt existing optimizers because GIMPLE representation
of instrumentation was not stable and also we still don't know what
are important targets for optimizations.

The plan is to have stable version first.  After enabling we want to
make performance analysis and determine which optimizations are most
required (it may appear checks removal doesn't give any significant
performance gain at all), determine which of current infrastructure
may be re-used (if any) and implement proper checker optimization.

Current optimizer is a simple code cleanup.  I do not think we should
make any significant rework of it as a part of enabling.  If current
approach seems to require significant changes to go to trunk then it
should be probably delayed and go separately from instrumentation
pass.

Thanks,
Ilya

  reply	other threads:[~2014-10-10 15:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-10-08 19:22 Ilya Enkovich
2014-10-09 17:45 ` Jeff Law
2014-10-10 15:52   ` Ilya Enkovich [this message]
2014-10-10 17:00     ` Jeff Law
2014-10-13 15:01       ` Ilya Enkovich
2014-10-13 16:10         ` Jeff Law

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='CAMbmDYb0Cy0c_osyKRVp==0dQh1ni_CuGrQ6_5jcRVhXs4LK4A@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=enkovich.gnu@gmail.com \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=law@redhat.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).