From 5e004fb787698440a387750db7f8028e7cb14cfc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Congzhe Cao Date: Wed, 4 May 2022 17:09:13 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] [LoopCacheAnalysis][NFC] Add a test case for improved loop cache analysis cost calculation Added a motivating test case for D123400 where the loopnest has a suboptimal loop order j-i-k. After D123400 we ensure that the order of loop cache analysis output is loop i-j-k, despite the suboptimal order in the original loopnest. Reviewed By: bmahjour, #loopoptwg Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D122776 --- .../LoopCacheAnalysis/PowerPC/single-store.ll | 77 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 77 insertions(+) diff --git a/llvm/test/Analysis/LoopCacheAnalysis/PowerPC/single-store.ll b/llvm/test/Analysis/LoopCacheAnalysis/PowerPC/single-store.ll index 8aa247b..24d8e93 100644 --- a/llvm/test/Analysis/LoopCacheAnalysis/PowerPC/single-store.ll +++ b/llvm/test/Analysis/LoopCacheAnalysis/PowerPC/single-store.ll @@ -75,3 +75,80 @@ for.end: ; preds = %for.end.loopexit, % ret void } +; Loop i is supposed to have the largest cost and be placed +; as the outermost loop. This test differs from foo() since the +; loopnest has a suboptimal order j-i-k. +; After D123400 we ensure that the order of loop cache analysis output +; is loop i-j-k, despite the suboptimal order in the original loopnest. +; +; void foo(long n, long m, long o, int A[n][m][o]) { +; for (long j = 0; j < m; j++) +; for (long i = 0; i < n; i++) +; for (long k = 0; k < o; k++) +; A[2*i+3][2*j-4][2*k+7] = 1; +; } + +; CHECK: Loop 'for.i' has cost = 100000000 +; CHECK-NEXT: Loop 'for.j' has cost = 1000000 +; CHECK-NEXT: Loop 'for.k' has cost = 60000 + +define void @foo2(i64 %n, i64 %m, i64 %o, i32* %A) { +entry: + %cmp32 = icmp sgt i64 %n, 0 + %cmp230 = icmp sgt i64 %m, 0 + %cmp528 = icmp sgt i64 %o, 0 + br i1 %cmp32, label %for.cond1.preheader.lr.ph, label %for.end + +for.cond1.preheader.lr.ph: ; preds = %entry + br i1 %cmp230, label %for.j.preheader, label %for.end + +for.j.preheader: ; preds = %for.cond1.preheader.lr.ph + br i1 %cmp528, label %for.j.preheader.split, label %for.end + +for.j.preheader.split: ; preds = %for.j.preheader + br label %for.j + +for.i: ; preds = %for.inci, %for.j + %i = phi i64 [ %inci, %for.inci ], [ 0, %for.j ] + %mul8 = shl i64 %i, 1 + %add9 = add nsw i64 %mul8, 3 + %0 = mul i64 %add9, %m + %sub = add i64 %0, -4 + %mul7 = mul nsw i64 %j, 2 + %tmp = add i64 %sub, %mul7 + %tmp27 = mul i64 %tmp, %o + br label %for.k + +for.j: ; preds = %for.incj, %for.j.preheader.split + %j = phi i64 [ %incj, %for.incj ], [ 0, %for.j.preheader.split ] + br label %for.i + +for.k: ; preds = %for.k, %for.i + %k = phi i64 [ 0, %for.i ], [ %inck, %for.k ] + + %mul = mul nsw i64 %k, 2 + %arrayidx.sum = add i64 %mul, 7 + %arrayidx10.sum = add i64 %arrayidx.sum, %tmp27 + %arrayidx11 = getelementptr inbounds i32, i32* %A, i64 %arrayidx10.sum + store i32 1, i32* %arrayidx11, align 4 + + %inck = add nsw i64 %k, 1 + %exitcond.us = icmp eq i64 %inck, %o + br i1 %exitcond.us, label %for.inci, label %for.k + +for.incj: ; preds = %for.inci + %incj = add nsw i64 %j, 1 + %exitcond54.us = icmp eq i64 %incj, %m + br i1 %exitcond54.us, label %for.end.loopexit, label %for.j + +for.inci: ; preds = %for.k + %inci = add nsw i64 %i, 1 + %exitcond55.us = icmp eq i64 %inci, %n + br i1 %exitcond55.us, label %for.incj, label %for.i + +for.end.loopexit: ; preds = %for.incj + br label %for.end + +for.end: ; preds = %for.end.loopexit, %for.cond1.preheader.lr.ph, %entry + ret void +} -- 2.7.4