[Mesa-dev] [PATCH 05/11] glsl: Add explanatory comments to lower_jumps.cpp.
Paul Berry
stereotype441 at gmail.com
Tue Jul 5 15:07:26 PDT 2011
No functional change.
---
src/glsl/lower_jumps.cpp | 336 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
1 files changed, 322 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/glsl/lower_jumps.cpp b/src/glsl/lower_jumps.cpp
index dd2601d..da85c6b 100644
--- a/src/glsl/lower_jumps.cpp
+++ b/src/glsl/lower_jumps.cpp
@@ -60,12 +60,76 @@
#include <string.h>
#include "ir.h"
+/**
+ * Enum recording the result of analyzing how control flow might exit
+ * an IR node.
+ *
+ * Each possible value of jump_strength indicates a strictly stronger
+ * guarantee on control flow than the previous value.
+ *
+ * The ordering of strengths roughly reflects the way jumps are
+ * lowered: jumps with higher strength tend to be lowered to jumps of
+ * lower strength. Accordingly, strength is used as a heuristic to
+ * determine which lowering to perform first.
+ *
+ * This enum is also used by get_jump_strength() to categorize
+ * instructions as either break, continue, return, or other. When
+ * used in this fashion, strength_always_clears_execute_flag is not
+ * used.
+ *
+ * The control flow analysis made by this optimization pass makes two
+ * simplifying assumptions:
+ *
+ * - It ignores discard instructions, since they are lowered by a
+ * separate pass (lower_discard.cpp).
+ *
+ * - It assumes it is always possible for control to flow from a loop
+ * to the instruction immediately following it. Technically, this
+ * is not true (since all execution paths through the loop might
+ * jump back to the top, or return from the function).
+ *
+ * Both of these simplifying assumtions are safe, since they can never
+ * cause reachable code to be incorrectly classified as unreachable;
+ * they can only do the opposite.
+ */
enum jump_strength
{
+ /**
+ * Analysis has produced no guarantee on how control flow might
+ * exit this IR node. It might fall out the bottom (with or
+ * without clearing the execute flag, if present), or it might
+ * continue to the top of the innermost enclosing loop, break out
+ * of it, or return from the function.
+ */
strength_none,
+
+ /**
+ * The only way control can fall out the bottom of this node is
+ * through a code path that clears the execute flag. It might also
+ * continue to the top of the innermost enclosing loop, break out
+ * of it, or return from the function.
+ */
strength_always_clears_execute_flag,
+
+ /**
+ * Control cannot fall out the bottom of this node. It might
+ * continue to the top of the innermost enclosing loop, break out
+ * of it, or return from the function.
+ */
strength_continue,
+
+ /**
+ * Control cannot fall out the bottom of this node, or continue the
+ * top of the innermost enclosing loop. It can only break out of
+ * it or return from the function.
+ */
strength_break,
+
+ /**
+ * Control cannot fall out the bottom of this node, continue to the
+ * top of the innermost enclosing loop, or break out of it. It can
+ * only return from the function.
+ */
strength_return
};
@@ -180,6 +244,27 @@ struct function_record
};
struct ir_lower_jumps_visitor : public ir_control_flow_visitor {
+ /* Postconditions: on exit of any visit() function:
+ *
+ * ANALYSIS: this->block.min_strength,
+ * this->block.may_clear_execute_flag, and
+ * this->loop.may_set_return_flag are updated to reflect the
+ * characteristics of the visited statement.
+ *
+ * DEAD_CODE_ELIMINATION: If this->block.min_strength is not
+ * strength_none, the visited node is at the end of its exec_list.
+ * In other words, any unreachable statements that follow the
+ * visited statement in its exec_list have been removed.
+ *
+ * CONTAINED_JUMPS_LOWERED: If the visited statement contains other
+ * statements, then should_lower_jump() is false for all of the
+ * return, break, or continue statements it contains.
+ *
+ * Note that visiting a jump does not lower it. That is the
+ * responsibility of the statement (or function signature) that
+ * contains the jump.
+ */
+
bool progress;
struct function_record function;
@@ -220,18 +305,57 @@ struct ir_lower_jumps_visitor : public ir_control_flow_visitor {
virtual void visit(class ir_loop_jump * ir)
{
+ /* Eliminate all instructions after each one, since they are
+ * unreachable. This satisfies the DEAD_CODE_ELIMINATION
+ * postcondition.
+ */
truncate_after_instruction(ir);
+
+ /* Set this->block.min_strength based on this instruction. This
+ * satisfies the ANALYSIS postcondition. It is not necessary to
+ * update this->block.may_clear_execute_flag or
+ * this->loop.may_set_return_flag, because an unlowered jump
+ * instruction can't change any flags.
+ */
this->block.min_strength = ir->is_break() ? strength_break : strength_continue;
+
+ /* The CONTAINED_JUMPS_LOWERED postcondition is already
+ * satisfied, because jump statements can't contain other
+ * statements.
+ */
}
virtual void visit(class ir_return * ir)
{
+ /* Eliminate all instructions after each one, since they are
+ * unreachable. This satisfies the DEAD_CODE_ELIMINATION
+ * postcondition.
+ */
truncate_after_instruction(ir);
+
+ /* Set this->block.min_strength based on this instruction. This
+ * satisfies the ANALYSIS postcondition. It is not necessary to
+ * update this->block.may_clear_execute_flag or
+ * this->loop.may_set_return_flag, because an unlowered return
+ * instruction can't change any flags.
+ */
this->block.min_strength = strength_return;
+
+ /* The CONTAINED_JUMPS_LOWERED postcondition is already
+ * satisfied, because jump statements can't contain other
+ * statements.
+ */
}
virtual void visit(class ir_discard * ir)
{
+ /* Nothing needs to be done. The ANALYSIS and
+ * DEAD_CODE_ELIMINATION postconditions are already satisfied,
+ * because discard statements are ignored by this optimization
+ * pass. The CONTAINED_JUMPS_LOWERED postcondition is already
+ * satisfied, because discard statements can't contain other
+ * statements.
+ */
}
enum jump_strength get_jump_strength(ir_instruction* ir)
@@ -304,18 +428,34 @@ struct ir_lower_jumps_visitor : public ir_control_flow_visitor {
block_record block_records[2];
ir_jump* jumps[2];
+ /* Recursively lower nested jumps. This satisfies the
+ * CONTAINED_JUMPS_LOWERED postcondition, except in the case of
+ * unconditional jumps at the end of ir->then_instructions and
+ * ir->else_instructions, which are handled below.
+ */
block_records[0] = visit_block(&ir->then_instructions);
block_records[1] = visit_block(&ir->else_instructions);
retry: /* we get here if we put code after the if inside a branch */
- for(unsigned i = 0; i < 2; ++i) {
- exec_list& list = i ? ir->else_instructions : ir->then_instructions;
- jumps[i] = 0;
- if(!list.is_empty() && get_jump_strength((ir_instruction*)list.get_tail()))
- jumps[i] = (ir_jump*)list.get_tail();
- }
+ /* Determine which of ir->then_instructions and
+ * ir->else_instructions end with an unconditional jump.
+ */
+ for(unsigned i = 0; i < 2; ++i) {
+ exec_list& list = i ? ir->else_instructions : ir->then_instructions;
+ jumps[i] = 0;
+ if(!list.is_empty() && get_jump_strength((ir_instruction*)list.get_tail()))
+ jumps[i] = (ir_jump*)list.get_tail();
+ }
+
+ /* Loop until we have satisfied the CONTAINED_JUMPS_LOWERED
+ * postcondition by lowering jumps in both then_instructions and
+ * else_instructions.
+ */
for(;;) {
+ /* Determine the types of the jumps that terminate
+ * ir->then_instructions and ir->else_instructions.
+ */
jump_strength jump_strengths[2];
for(unsigned i = 0; i < 2; ++i) {
@@ -326,7 +466,12 @@ retry: /* we get here if we put code after the if inside a branch */
jump_strengths[i] = strength_none;
}
- /* move both jumps out if possible */
+ /* If both code paths end in a jump, and the jumps are the
+ * same, and we are pulling out jumps, replace them with a
+ * single jump that comes after the if instruction. The new
+ * jump will be visited next, and it will be lowered if
+ * necessary by the loop or conditional that encloses it.
+ */
if(pull_out_jumps && jump_strengths[0] == jump_strengths[1]) {
bool unify = true;
if(jump_strengths[0] == strength_continue)
@@ -344,10 +489,19 @@ retry: /* we get here if we put code after the if inside a branch */
jumps[1]->remove();
this->progress = true;
+ /* Update jumps[] to reflect the fact that the jumps
+ * are gone, and update block_records[] to reflect the
+ * fact that control can now flow to the next
+ * instruction.
+ */
jumps[0] = 0;
jumps[1] = 0;
block_records[0].min_strength = strength_none;
block_records[1].min_strength = strength_none;
+
+ /* The CONTAINED_JUMPS_LOWERED postcondition is now
+ * satisfied, so we can break out of the loop.
+ */
break;
}
}
@@ -367,9 +521,18 @@ retry: /* we get here if we put code after the if inside a branch */
else if(should_lower[1])
lower = 1;
else
+ /* Neither code path ends in a jump that needs to be
+ * lowered, so the CONTAINED_JUMPS_LOWERED postcondition
+ * is satisfied and we can break out of the loop.
+ */
break;
if(jump_strengths[lower] == strength_return) {
+ /* To lower a return, we create a return flag (if the
+ * function doesn't have one already) and add instructions
+ * that: 1. store the return value (if this function has a
+ * non-void return) and 2. set the return flag
+ */
ir_variable* return_flag = this->function.get_return_flag();
if(!this->function.signature->return_type->is_void()) {
ir_variable* return_value = this->function.get_return_value();
@@ -378,29 +541,58 @@ retry: /* we get here if we put code after the if inside a branch */
jumps[lower]->insert_before(new(ir) ir_assignment(new (ir) ir_dereference_variable(return_flag), new (ir) ir_constant(true), NULL));
this->loop.may_set_return_flag = true;
if(this->loop.loop) {
+ /* If we are in a loop, replace the return instruction
+ * with a break instruction, and then loop so that the
+ * break instruction can be lowered if necessary.
+ */
ir_loop_jump* lowered = 0;
lowered = new(ir) ir_loop_jump(ir_loop_jump::jump_break);
+ /* Note: we must update block_records and jumps to
+ * reflect the fact that the control path has been
+ * altered from a return to a break.
+ */
block_records[lower].min_strength = strength_break;
jumps[lower]->replace_with(lowered);
jumps[lower] = lowered;
- } else
+ } else {
+ /* If we are not in a loop, we then proceed as we would
+ * for a continue statement (set the execute flag to
+ * false to prevent the rest of the function from
+ * executing).
+ */
goto lower_continue;
+ }
this->progress = true;
} else if(jump_strengths[lower] == strength_break) {
- /* We can't lower to an actual continue because that would execute the increment.
+ /* To lower a break, we create a break flag (if the loop
+ * doesn't have one already) and add an instruction that
+ * sets it.
*
- * In the lowered code, we instead put the break check between the this->loop body and the increment,
- * which is impossible with a real continue as defined by the GLSL IR currently.
+ * Then we proceed as we would for a continue statement
+ * (set the execute flag to false to prevent the rest of
+ * the loop body from executing).
*
- * Smarter options (such as undoing the increment) are possible but it's not worth implementing them,
- * because if break is lowered, continue is almost surely lowered too.
+ * The visit() function for the loop will ensure that the
+ * break flag is checked after executing the loop body.
*/
jumps[lower]->insert_before(new(ir) ir_assignment(new (ir) ir_dereference_variable(this->loop.get_break_flag()), new (ir) ir_constant(true), 0));
goto lower_continue;
} else if(jump_strengths[lower] == strength_continue) {
lower_continue:
+ /* To lower a continue, we create an execute flag (if the
+ * loop doesn't have one already) and replace the continue
+ * with an instruction that clears it.
+ *
+ * Note that this code path gets exercised when lowering
+ * return statements that are not inside a loop, so
+ * this->loop must be initialized even outside of loops.
+ */
ir_variable* execute_flag = this->loop.get_execute_flag();
jumps[lower]->replace_with(new(ir) ir_assignment(new (ir) ir_dereference_variable(execute_flag), new (ir) ir_constant(false), 0));
+ /* Note: we must update block_records and jumps to reflect
+ * the fact that the control path has been altered to an
+ * instruction that clears the execute flag.
+ */
jumps[lower] = 0;
block_records[lower].min_strength = strength_always_clears_execute_flag;
block_records[lower].may_clear_execute_flag = true;
@@ -411,6 +603,12 @@ lower_continue:
/* move out a jump out if possible */
if(pull_out_jumps) {
+ /* If one of the branches ends in a jump, and control cannot
+ * fall out the bottom of the other branch, then we can move
+ * the jump after the if.
+ *
+ * Set move_out to the branch we are moving a jump out of.
+ */
int move_out = -1;
if(jumps[0] && block_records[1].min_strength >= strength_continue)
move_out = 0;
@@ -421,22 +619,46 @@ lower_continue:
{
jumps[move_out]->remove();
ir->insert_after(jumps[move_out]);
+ /* Note: we must update block_records and jumps to reflect
+ * the fact that the jump has been moved out of the if.
+ */
jumps[move_out] = 0;
block_records[move_out].min_strength = strength_none;
this->progress = true;
}
}
+ /* Now satisfy the ANALYSIS postcondition by setting
+ * this->block.min_strength and
+ * this->block.may_clear_execute_flag based on the
+ * characteristics of the two branches.
+ */
if(block_records[0].min_strength < block_records[1].min_strength)
this->block.min_strength = block_records[0].min_strength;
else
this->block.min_strength = block_records[1].min_strength;
this->block.may_clear_execute_flag = this->block.may_clear_execute_flag || block_records[0].may_clear_execute_flag || block_records[1].may_clear_execute_flag;
+ /* Now we need to clean up the instructions that follow the
+ * if.
+ *
+ * If those instructions are unreachable, then satisfy the
+ * DEAD_CODE_ELIMINATION postcondition by eliminating them.
+ * Otherwise that postcondition is already satisfied.
+ */
if(this->block.min_strength)
truncate_after_instruction(ir);
else if(this->block.may_clear_execute_flag)
{
+ /* If the "if" instruction might clear the execute flag, then
+ * we need to guard any instructions that follow so that they
+ * are only executed if the execute flag is set.
+ *
+ * If one of the branches of the "if" always clears the
+ * execute flag, and the other branch never clears it, then
+ * this is easy: just move all the instructions following the
+ * "if" into the branch that never clears it.
+ */
int move_into = -1;
if(block_records[0].min_strength && !block_records[1].may_clear_execute_flag)
move_into = 1;
@@ -451,14 +673,34 @@ lower_continue:
if(!next->is_tail_sentinel()) {
move_outer_block_inside(ir, list);
+ /* If any instructions moved, then we need to visit
+ * them (since they are now inside the "if"). Since
+ * block_records[move_into] is in its default state
+ * (see assertion above), we can safely replace
+ * block_records[move_into] with the result of this
+ * analysis.
+ */
exec_list list;
list.head = next;
block_records[move_into] = visit_block(&list);
+ /*
+ * Then we need to re-start our jump lowering, since one
+ * of the instructions we moved might be a jump that
+ * needs to be lowered.
+ */
this->progress = true;
goto retry;
}
} else {
+ /* If we get here, then the simple case didn't apply; we
+ * need to actually guard the instructions that follow.
+ *
+ * To avoid creating unnecessarily-deep nesting, first
+ * look through the instructions that follow and unwrap
+ * any instructions that that are already wrapped in the
+ * appropriate guard.
+ */
ir_instruction* ir_after;
for(ir_after = (ir_instruction*)ir->get_next(); !ir_after->is_tail_sentinel();)
{
@@ -479,6 +721,9 @@ lower_continue:
this->progress = true;
}
+ /* Then, wrap all the instructions that follow in a single
+ * guard.
+ */
if(!ir->get_next()->is_tail_sentinel()) {
assert(this->loop.execute_flag);
ir_if* if_execute = new(ir) ir_if(new(ir) ir_dereference_variable(this->loop.execute_flag));
@@ -493,29 +738,87 @@ lower_continue:
virtual void visit(ir_loop *ir)
{
+ /* Visit the body of the loop, with a fresh data structure in
+ * this->loop so that the analysis we do here won't bleed into
+ * enclosing loops.
+ *
+ * We assume that all code after a loop is reachable from the
+ * loop (see comments on enum jump_strength), so the
+ * DEAD_CODE_ELIMINATION postcondition is automatically
+ * satisfied, as is the block.min_strength portion of the
+ * ANALYSIS postcondition.
+ *
+ * The block.may_clear_execute_flag portion of the ANALYSIS
+ * postcondition is automatically satisfied because execute
+ * flags do not propagate outside of loops.
+ *
+ * The loop.may_set_return_flag portion of the ANALYSIS
+ * postcondition is handled below.
+ */
++this->function.nesting_depth;
loop_record saved_loop = this->loop;
this->loop = loop_record(this->function.signature, ir);
+ /* Recursively lower nested jumps. This satisfies the
+ * CONTAINED_JUMPS_LOWERED postcondition, except in the case of
+ * an unconditional continue or return at the bottom of the
+ * loop.
+ */
block_record body = visit_block(&ir->body_instructions);
if(body.min_strength >= strength_break) {
- /* FINISHME: turn the this->loop into an if, or replace it with its body */
+ /* FINISHME: If the min_strength of the loop body is
+ * strength_break or strength_return, that means that it
+ * isn't a loop at all, since control flow always leaves the
+ * body of the loop via break or return. In principle the
+ * loop could be eliminated in this case. This optimization
+ * is not implemented yet.
+ */
}
if(this->loop.break_flag) {
+ /* If a break flag was generated while visiting the body of
+ * the loop, then at least one break was lowered, so we need
+ * to generate an if statement at the end of the loop that
+ * does a "break" if the break flag is set. The break we
+ * generate won't violate the CONTAINED_JUMPS_LOWERED
+ * postcondition, because should_lower_jump() always returns
+ * false for a break that happens at the end of a loop.
+ */
ir_if* break_if = new(ir) ir_if(new(ir) ir_dereference_variable(this->loop.break_flag));
break_if->then_instructions.push_tail(new(ir) ir_loop_jump(ir_loop_jump::jump_break));
ir->body_instructions.push_tail(break_if);
}
+ /* If the body of the loop may set the return flag, then at
+ * least one return was lowered to a break, so we need to ensure
+ * that the return flag is checked after the body of the loop is
+ * executed.
+ */
if(this->loop.may_set_return_flag) {
assert(this->function.return_flag);
+ /* Generate the if statement to check the return flag */
ir_if* return_if = new(ir) ir_if(new(ir) ir_dereference_variable(this->function.return_flag));
+ /* Note: we also need to propagate the knowledge that the
+ * return flag may get set to the outer context. This
+ * satisfies the loop.may_set_return_flag part of the
+ * ANALYSIS postcondition.
+ */
saved_loop.may_set_return_flag = true;
if(saved_loop.loop)
+ /* If this loop is nested inside another one, then the if
+ * statement that we generated should break out of that
+ * loop if the return flag is set. Caller will lower that
+ * break statement if necessary.
+ */
return_if->then_instructions.push_tail(new(ir) ir_loop_jump(ir_loop_jump::jump_break));
else
+ /* Otherwise, all we need to do is ensure that the
+ * instructions that follow are only executed if the
+ * return flag is clear. We can do that by moving those
+ * instructions into the else clause of the generated if
+ * statement.
+ */
move_outer_block_inside(ir, &return_if->else_instructions);
ir->insert_after(return_if);
}
@@ -536,6 +839,11 @@ lower_continue:
this->loop = loop_record(ir);
assert(!this->loop.loop);
+
+ /* Visit the body of the function to lower any jumps that occur
+ * in it, except possibly an unconditional return statement at
+ * the end of it.
+ */
visit_block(&ir->body);
if(this->function.return_value)
--
1.7.5.4
More information about the mesa-dev
mailing list