Open Quuxplusone opened 5 years ago
Attached bug.cxx
(1430 bytes, text/x-c++src): Code posted on godbolt
Discussion from llvm-dev mailing lists about this issue:
Reply from Nema, Ashutosh
"""
Seems like when you comment out a loop in “compute” function, it gets inlined,
this helps LV by finding the bounds and vectorizes it.
With the presence of all the loops LAA is not able to identify the bounds for
the accesses:
LAA: Can't find bounds for ptr: %arrayidx.i159 = getelementptr inbounds
double, double* %30, i64 %and.i158, !dbg !46
LAA: Can't find bounds for ptr: %arrayidx.i155 = getelementptr inbounds
double, double* %36, i64 %and.i154, !dbg !66
LAA: Can't find bounds for ptr: %arrayidx.i151 = getelementptr inbounds
double, double* %42, i64 %and.i150, !dbg !91
Its bit strange as its able to identify the bounds correctly for the first loop.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Reply from Michael Kruse
"""
There is some weird interaction between alias-analysis and the
vectorized code. For the first loop, alias-analysis is able to
determine that "output" is not aliasing with the read-only arrays:
LAA: Processing memory accesses...
AST: Alias Set Tracker: 2 alias sets for 7 pointer values.
AliasSet[0x16a131c3120, 1] must alias, No access Pointers: (double*
%arrayidx6, unknown)
AliasSet[0x16a131c1e90, 6] may alias, No access Pointers: (double*
%arrayidx, unknown), (double* %arrayidx1, unknown), (double**
%_pointer.i, unknown), (i64* %_mask.i, unknown), (double* %arrayidx.i,
unknown), (double* %arrayidx5, unknown)
After vectorizing the first loop, it is not able to do this anymore
(did not investigate the why). When trying to vectorize the second
loop, it requires a runtime condition to guard against aliasing (for
which it needs to determine the loop bounds), but is unable to do so
because of the the and-mask of "G"/BracketAdapterWithMask:
%arrayidx.i159 --- or as SCEV: ((8 * %and.i158)<nsw> + %36)<nsw>
When removing one of the for-loops, the entire compute-function is
inlined into the run function and this problem is magically resolved.
Not sure why.
Would you file a bug report?
bug.cxx
(1430 bytes, text/x-c++src)