Is there any chance of replacing/extending the GEP instruction?
As noted in the GEP FAQ, GEPs don't support variable-length arrays; when the front ends have to support VLAs, they linearize the subscript expressions, throwing away information. The FAQ suggests that folks interested in writing an analysis that understands array indices (I'm thinking of dependence analysis) should be prepared to reverse-engineer the linearization, but I don't believe it's possible to recover all the possible subscripts, including some common and useful situations.
The FAQ suggests that one way to solve this problem is to use the SCEV library which always represents the VLA and non-VLA index in the same manner. I don't see it. Here's some code I wrote to explore how various array references are compiled:
Basically, it zips though the instructions in a routine, dumping them out. When it finds a store, it recovers the associated GEP and dumps its operand SCEVs. To make it easy to understand, I typically write very simple test cases, e.g.,
In this case, we see
which is easy enough. If we have something more complex, like this
void z1(long int n, long int A[][100][100]) { we'll see
which looks great; 3 simple indices, no problem.
But consider this:
which produces
This is more tedious. There are 2 easy indices hanging from the GEP, but the rest are compressed into one SCEV. The upshot is: Whenever I look at a memory reference, I need to attempt to delinearize the first SCEV (in the order I've printed them) to look for other implied indices. (As a bonus, delinearization would sometimes be able to untangle examples where humans have linearized their own references, perhaps in antique C code, written before VLAs.) Some, like the examples above can be handled; others seem impossible, which is too bad.
Here are some examples that are hard to delinearize:
It's also plausible to analyze pairs of non-linear subscripts, like [1 + 2*B[i]] and [2*B[i]], easily proving there's no dependence despite our lack of knowledge about B[i].
So, ... Perhaps we could consider a new variant of the GEP instruction that lets us recover all the subscripts, without any loss of info, regardless of how absurd they might appear. The current GEP allows many subscripts, but the strides are encoded in the type. An alternative might support many subscripts, each with an explicit stride, maybe constant, maybe a parameter, maybe even the result of a computation. If we're clever, we could even handle complex accesses resulting from structs of vectors of structs of ...
I think such a change might have a fair amount of impact all through the optimizer (thinking especially of strength reduction and common-subexpression elimination), but we could also introduce a phase that explicitly linearizes a complex GEP, yielding the current, simpler forms. As long as such a linearization occurs after dependence analysis, no information would be lost and the impact to the rest of the infrastructure would be minimized.
Is such an idea completely out of the question? Thanks,
Preston _______________________________________________ LLVM Developers mailing list [hidden email] http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev |
Hi Preston,
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Preston Briggs <[hidden email]> wrote: > > which produces > > %arrayidx24 = getelementptr inbounds [100 x [100 x i64]]* %A, i64 > %arrayidx21.sum, i64 %add1411, i64 %add > store i64 0, i64* %arrayidx24, align 8 > {{{(5 + ((3 + %n) * %n)),+,(2 * %n * %n)}<%for.cond1.preheader>,+,(4 * %n)}<%for.cond4.preheader>,+,6}<%for.cond7.preheader> This expression is not straight forward because llvm always fold the loop invariant in the AddExpr into the AddRecExpr. If I understand the AddRecExpr correctly, the above SCEV is equivalent to: (5 + ((3 + %n) * %n)) + (2 * %n * %n) * {0,+,1}<%for.cond1.preheader> + (4 * %n) * {0,+,1}<%for.cond4.preheader> + 6 * {0,+,1}<%for.cond7.preheader> In the above example, you can treat {0,+,1}<%for.cond1.preheader>, {0,+,1}<%for.cond4.preheader> and {0,+,1}<%for.cond7.preheader> as the (virtual) canonical induction variables of the corresponding loop, which start from 0, and increased by 1 in every iteration. In this case, you may need to introduce your own data structure to represent linear expressions, which re-organize the sub-expressions in SCEV in form of what you want. To construct the linear expressions, you need to visit and analyze all sub-expressions in the SCEV, instead of simply looking at the top-level SCEV. Maybe you could have a look at the SCEVValidator[1], which check if a SCEV is affine, and and SCEVAffinator[2], which build a kind of affine expression from SCEV, all of them need to visit and analyze all sub-expressions in the SCEV. best regards ether [1]http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/polly/trunk/lib/Support/SCEVValidator.cpp?view=markup [2]http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/polly/trunk/lib/Analysis/ScopInfo.cpp?view=markup _______________________________________________ LLVM Developers mailing list [hidden email] http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev |
Hi Ether,
> Preston wrote: > > %arrayidx24 = getelementptr inbounds [100 x [100 x i64]]* %A, i64 > > %arrayidx21.sum, i64 %add1411, i64 %add > > store i64 0, i64* %arrayidx24, align 8 > > {{{(5 + ((3 + %n) * %n)),+,(2 * %n * %n)}<%for.cond1.preheader>,+,(4 * %n)}<%for.cond4.preheader>,+,6}<%for.cond7.preheader> And Ether replied: > This expression is not straight forward because llvm always fold the > loop invariant in the AddExpr into the AddRecExpr. > If I understand the AddRecExpr correctly, the above SCEV is equivalent to: > (5 + ((3 + %n) * %n)) + (2 * %n * %n) * {0,+,1}<%for.cond1.preheader> > + (4 * %n) * {0,+,1}<%for.cond4.preheader> + 6 * > {0,+,1}<%for.cond7.preheader> > In the above example, you can treat {0,+,1}<%for.cond1.preheader>, > {0,+,1}<%for.cond4.preheader> and {0,+,1}<%for.cond7.preheader> as the > (virtual) canonical induction variables of the corresponding loop, > which start from 0, and increased by 1 in every iteration. Well, these are two representations of the same thing. I think they're both equally easy to interpret. When we see an SECV like {a, +, b}<loop.i>, we can interpret it as [a + b*i] directly, or first rewrite it as a + b*{0, +, 1}, doesn't matter. > In this case, you may need to introduce your own data structure to > represent linear expressions, which re-organize the sub-expressions in > SCEV in form of what you want. To construct the linear expressions, > you need to visit and analyze all sub-expressions in the SCEV, instead > of simply looking at the top-level SCEV. Maybe you could have a look > at the SCEVValidator[1], which check if a SCEV is affine, and and > SCEVAffinator[2], which build a kind of affine expression from SCEV, > all of them need to visit and analyze all sub-expressions in the SCEV. I've written various bits of code that exhaustively explore SCEVs; that's not the difficulty. The hard part is taking something like: {{{((7 + (104 * %n)) * %n),+,((8 + (200 * %n)) * %n)}<%for.cond1.preheader>,+,(305 * %n * %n)}<%for.cond4.preheader>,+,(9 + (6 * %n * %n))}<%for.body6> and figuring out the number of subscripts and what they might be. I'm sure there are 3 indices, call them i, j, and k. 2 of the subscripts have bounds of n, but figuring out that one has a bound of 100 seems hard. And how many subscripts are there? i appears in 2 subscripts, one with stride 8, but the other might be any factor of 200. j appears would seem to appear in 2 subscripts, but they're hard to prove. k appears in 2 subscripts, one with stride 9 and one with stride 6. Knowing somehow that there's a bound of 100 in one of the subscripts would help a lot, but how to prove that? Note that this is example is affine; it confuses us because some of the subscripts are coupled. Extending the GEP, my real goal, avoid this confusion. Thanks, Preston _______________________________________________ LLVM Developers mailing list [hidden email] http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev |
In reply to this post by Preston Briggs
Hi Preston,
> As noted in the GEP FAQ, GEPs don't support variable-length arrays; that's not quite right. The problem is only with arrays of variable length arrays, and more generally with arrays where the element type has variable size (this occurs with Ada, which has all kinds of funky variable sized types, for example). Consider your examples: > *void zap(long int n, long int A[]) {* > * for (unsigned int i = 0; i < n; i++)* > * A[1 + 2*i] = 0;* > *}* ... > *%arrayidx = getelementptr inbounds i64* %A, i64 %add3* Here GEP has no problem with this variable sized array. > *void z1(long int n, long int A[][100][100]) { > ** for (long int i = 0; i < n; i++) > ** for (long int j = 0; j < n; j++) > ** for (long int k = 0; k < n; k++) > ****A[1 + 2*i][3 + 4*j][5 + 6*k] = 0;* > } ... > *%arrayidx12 = getelementptr inbounds [100 x [100 x i64]]* %A, i64 %add109, Here neither. > *void z2(long int n, long int A[][n][n][100][100]) { * > * for (long int i = 0; i < n; i++) * > * for (long int j = 0; j < n; j++) * > * for (long int k = 0; k < n; k++) * > ***for (long int l = 0; l < n; l++) * > ***for (long int m = 0; m < n; m++) * > ***A[1 + 2*i][3 + 4*j][5 + 6*k][7 + 8*l][9 + 10*m] = 0; * > } This is where you run into trouble, because this is an array with a variable sized element type. Currently GEP is designed so that the offset from the base pointer is an affine function *with constant multipliers*, eg: 3*x + 10*y. This is analytically a completely different beast to an offset of eg: x * y. Yes, this is a limitation, but x*y is fundamentally different to and harder than 3*x. Ciao, Duncan. _______________________________________________ LLVM Developers mailing list [hidden email] http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev |
In reply to this post by Preston Briggs
Duncan Sands wrote:
>> As noted in the GEP FAQ, GEPs don't support variable-length arrays; > > that's not quite right. The problem is only with arrays of variable length > arrays, and more generally with arrays where the element type has variable > size (this occurs with Ada, which has all kinds of funky variable sized types, > for example). You're right, though of course I was quoting from the FAQ. You worry about handling Ada... I'm old and worry that we can't even handle Fortran well. >Consider your examples: > >> *void zap(long int n, long int A[]) {* >> * for (unsigned int i = 0; i < n; i++)* >> * A[1 + 2*i] = 0;* >> *}* > >> *%arrayidx = getelementptr inbounds i64* %A, i64 %add3* > Here GEP has no problem with this variable sized array. Right. I was trying to starting simple, to help illustrate what my little code did. > >> *void z1(long int n, long int A[][100][100]) { >> ** for (long int i = 0; i < n; i++) >> ** for (long int j = 0; j < n; j++) >> ** for (long int k = 0; k < n; k++) >> ****A[1 + 2*i][3 + 4*j][5 + 6*k] = 0;* >> } >> >> *%arrayidx12 = getelementptr inbounds [100 x [100 x i64]]* %A, i64 %add109, > > > Here neither. Right again, another simple example. In both cases, we've basically got a vector of fixed-sized elements. I'll note however, that because of the general weakness of GEPs, I'm going to have to try and delinearize everything that comes at me, 'cause I can't tell how simple or complex the original array was in the source code. >> *void z2(long int n, long int A[][n][n][100][100]) { * >> * for (long int i = 0; i < n; i++) * >> * for (long int j = 0; j < n; j++) * >> * for (long int k = 0; k < n; k++) * >> ***for (long int l = 0; l < n; l++) * >> ***for (long int m = 0; m < n; m++) * >> ***A[1 + 2*i][3 + 4*j][5 + 6*k][7 + 8*l][9 + 10*m] = 0; * >> } > > > This is where you run into trouble, because this is an array with a variable > sized element type. > > Currently GEP is designed so that the offset from the base pointer is an affine > function *with constant multipliers*, eg: 3*x + 10*y. I merely argue for allowing constant-but-unknown multipliers, i.e., parameters. They're still affine for purposes of dependence analysis (by things like the Delta test or Polly), but oh so much more useful. Multi-dimensional VLAs happen, especially in scientific code. How are we going to express DGEMM (matrix multiplication)? We could do it by manually linearizing all the array references, or we could do it the way god intended when he standardized C90, with VLAs. I'm arguing that it would be wonderful to be able to analyze such code accurately. Regardest, Preston _______________________________________________ LLVM Developers mailing list [hidden email] http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev |
Hi Preston,
>>> As noted in the GEP FAQ, GEPs don't support variable-length arrays; >> >> that's not quite right. The problem is only with arrays of variable length >> arrays, and more generally with arrays where the element type has variable >> size (this occurs with Ada, which has all kinds of funky variable sized types, >> for example). > > You're right, though of course I was quoting from the FAQ. > > You worry about handling Ada... > I'm old and worry that we can't even handle Fortran well. ... >>> *void z2(long int n, long int A[][n][n][100][100]) { * >>> * for (long int i = 0; i< n; i++) * >>> * for (long int j = 0; j< n; j++) * >>> * for (long int k = 0; k< n; k++) * >>> ***for (long int l = 0; l< n; l++) * >>> ***for (long int m = 0; m< n; m++) * >>> ***A[1 + 2*i][3 + 4*j][5 + 6*k][7 + 8*l][9 + 10*m] = 0; * >>> } >> >> >> This is where you run into trouble, because this is an array with a variable >> sized element type. >> >> Currently GEP is designed so that the offset from the base pointer is an affine >> function *with constant multipliers*, eg: 3*x + 10*y. > > I merely argue for allowing constant-but-unknown multipliers, i.e., > parameters. They're still affine for purposes of dependence analysis > (by things like the Delta test or Polly), but oh so much more useful. > > Multi-dimensional VLAs happen, especially in scientific code. How are > we going to express DGEMM (matrix multiplication)? We could do it by > manually linearizing all the array references, or we could do it the > way god intended when he standardized C90, with VLAs. I'm arguing that > it would be wonderful to be able to analyze such code accurately. this would be a radical change to GEP, and as such would mean a huge amount of work. That said, being able to describe affine functions with locally constant multipliers in a nice and effective way would be great. I expect that this is really a job for SCEV, not for GEP. Hopefully Chris will comment on this issue. Ciao, Duncan. _______________________________________________ LLVM Developers mailing list [hidden email] http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev |
On May 4, 2012, at 8:59 AM, Duncan Sands wrote:
>>> This is where you run into trouble, because this is an array with a variable >>> sized element type. >>> >>> Currently GEP is designed so that the offset from the base pointer is an affine >>> function *with constant multipliers*, eg: 3*x + 10*y. >> >> I merely argue for allowing constant-but-unknown multipliers, i.e., >> parameters. They're still affine for purposes of dependence analysis >> (by things like the Delta test or Polly), but oh so much more useful. >> >> Multi-dimensional VLAs happen, especially in scientific code. How are >> we going to express DGEMM (matrix multiplication)? We could do it by >> manually linearizing all the array references, or we could do it the >> way god intended when he standardized C90, with VLAs. I'm arguing that >> it would be wonderful to be able to analyze such code accurately. > > this would be a radical change to GEP, and as such would mean a huge amount of > work. That said, being able to describe affine functions with locally constant > multipliers in a nice and effective way would be great. I expect that this is > really a job for SCEV, not for GEP. Hopefully Chris will comment on this issue. I think it's fair to say that this is an artifact of LLVM's early design being too focused on C. Generalizing GEP like this would be very reasonable and I'm supportive of that, but the devil in the details :) -Chris _______________________________________________ LLVM Developers mailing list [hidden email] http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev |
In reply to this post by Duncan Sands
On May 4, 2012, at 8:59 AM, Duncan Sands <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Currently GEP is designed so that the offset from the base pointer is an affine >>> function *with constant multipliers*, eg: 3*x + 10*y. >> >> I merely argue for allowing constant-but-unknown multipliers, i.e., >> parameters. They're still affine for purposes of dependence analysis >> (by things like the Delta test or Polly), but oh so much more useful. >> >> Multi-dimensional VLAs happen, especially in scientific code. How are >> we going to express DGEMM (matrix multiplication)? We could do it by >> manually linearizing all the array references, or we could do it the >> way god intended when he standardized C90, with VLAs. I'm arguing that >> it would be wonderful to be able to analyze such code accurately. > > this would be a radical change to GEP, and as such would mean a huge amount of > work. That said, being able to describe affine functions with locally constant > multipliers in a nice and effective way would be great. I expect that this is > really a job for SCEV, not for GEP. Hopefully Chris will comment on this issue. I'm not sure what more SCEV can do, other than provide a more convenient interface for dependence testing. Each recurrence in the chain directly tells you the lower bounds and stride, while getSCEVAtScope provides the exit value, or upper "array bounds". The problem that's obvious to me is that an inner IV cannot always be tested against the stride of its outer loop. Often I think it can, but Preston points out "hard to delinearize" cases. For those cases, it seems to me that the compiler either needs array bounds checks or preservation of the source language's aliasing rules, maybe in the form of variable size inbounds GEP. But the "inboundsness" of a GEP is not well defined and hard to preserve. -Andy _______________________________________________ LLVM Developers mailing list [hidden email] http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |