Next: , Previous: , Up: Top   [Contents]


16 Control optimization

In this phase we annotate blocks with drop-throughs. This controls how code generation linearizes code so that drop-throughs are used most effectively. We totally linearize the code here, allowing code generation to scan the blocks in the emit order.

There are basically two aspects to this optimization:

  1. Dynamically reducing the number of branches taken v.s. branches not taken under the assumption that branches not taken are cheaper.
  2. Statically minimizing the number of unconditional branches, saving space and presumably time.

These two goals can conflict, but if they do it seems pretty clear that the dynamic optimization should get preference. The main dynamic optimization is changing the sense of a conditional test so that the more commonly taken branch is the fall-through case. The problem is determining which branch is more commonly taken.

The most clear-cut case is where one branch leads out of a loop and the other is within. In this case, clearly the branch within the loop should be preferred. The only added complication is that at some point in the loop there has to be a backward branch, and it is preferable for this branch to be conditional, since an unconditional branch is just a waste of time.

In the absence of such good information, we can attempt to guess which branch is more popular on the basis of difference in the cost between the two cases. Min-max strategy suggests that we should choose the cheaper alternative, since the percentagewise improvement is greater when the branch overhead is significant with respect to the cost of the code branched to. A tractable approximation of this is to compare only the costs of the two blocks immediately branched to, since this would avoid having to do any hairy graph walking to find all the code for the consequent and the alternative. It might be worthwhile discriminating against ultra-expensive functions such as ERROR.

For this to work, we have to detect when one of the options is empty. In this case, the next for one branch is a successor of the other branch, making the comparison meaningless. We use dominator information to detect this situation. When a branch is empty, one of the predecessors of the first block in the empty branch will be dominated by the first block in the other branch. In such a case we favor the empty branch, since that’s about as cheap as you can get.

Statically minimizing branches is really a much more tractable problem, but what literature there is makes it look hard. Clearly the thing to do is to use a non-optimal heuristic algorithm.

A good possibility is to use an algorithm based on the depth first ordering. We can modify the basic DFO algorithm so that it chooses an ordering which favors any drop-thrus that we may choose for dynamic reasons. When we are walking the graph, we walk the desired drop-thru arc last, which will place it immediately after us in the DFO unless the arc is a retreating arc.

We scan through the DFO and whenever we find a block that hasn’t been done yet, we build a straight-line segment by setting the drop-thru to the unreached successor block which has the lowest DFN greater than that for the block. We move to the drop-thru block and repeat the process until there is no such block. We then go back to our original scan through the DFO, looking for the head of another straight-line segment.

This process will automagically implement all of the dynamic optimizations described above as long as we favor the appropriate IF branch when creating the DFO. Using the DFO will prevent us from making the back branch in a loop the drop-thru, but we need to be clever about favoring IF branches within loops while computing the DFO. The IF join will be favored without any special effort, since we follow through the most favored path until we reach the end.

This needs some knowledge about the target machine, since on most machines non-tail-recursive calls will use some sort of call instruction. In this case, the call actually wants to drop through to the return point, rather than dropping through to the beginning of the called function.


Next: , Previous: , Up: Top   [Contents]