[Mono-devel-list] Ideas on the ABC removal code

Ben Maurer 05mauben at hawken.edu
Fri May 28 09:13:58 EDT 2004

We could make under/overflow easy for you if someone does:

object [] a;
foreach (object o in a) {

I think it would be valid for mcs to emit an unsigned comparison in the loop. This would mean for that case you need not worry about overflow.

Of course, some people will still write out manual for loops. I could do some checking to see the frequency of `foreach' vs `for' when looping through an array.

I am not sure why the Jikes code does not handle the overflow case though...

-- Ben
>>> Massimiliano Mantione <massi at ximian.com> 05/28/04 08:50 AM >>>

I finally "digested" the ABCD paper:


All in all, their approach is surprisingly similar to ours
(explained in the file "docs/abc-removal.txt" in the mono
source tree).
If it wasn't because they actually were there first, I would
say that they have stolen my code and improved on it :-)

The main difference between the two approaches is the way in
which the "relation graph" is explored. What my code does is
the most stupid (but also easiest) thing: the graph is stored
as a matrix (each cell is a potential graph arc), and the
whole matrix is fully processed multiple times, until all the
possible consequences are exhausted (it is the computation of
the "closure" of the relation graph, where "implied" relations
are made explicit).
At that point, the eventual presence of specific arcs states
if specific ABCs can be removed.

In the ABCD paper, on the other hand, the idea is simply to
"explore" the graph locally, starting from nodes defining
arrays, and seeing if the paths that lead to the index used
accessing the array has certain properties (if this is true,
the ABC can be removed).
It turns out that the "exploration" algorithm is simply a
depth first traversal, with special care taken to break cycles.
It also turns out that the logic used to break cycles is just
the one we use now (luckily).

One minor difference (but very important) is that the ABCD
approach requires the extension of the SSA form with PI nodes.
Basically, these nodes are there to mark the fact that a given
SSA variable actually has "different" values inside different
BBs, because these BBs are "guarded" by conditions on that
variable. We keep up without this extended SSA form simply
because we reconstruct the evaluation graph at each BB, taking
into account the proper entry condition of the BB.
However, this reconstruction (which in itself is not so bad)
causes the need for the re-evaluation (exploration) of the
*whole* graph at each BB (which is very bad).

I have been thinking about this for a while, and there is a
solution that is sound (not a hack) and that can have a good

The goals are:
[1] Avoid scanning the whole graph, just examine it locally.
[2] Avoid re-examining the same variable in different BBs
    if this is not strictly needed (the variable would have
    had a PI definition in this case, or would "depend" from
    a PI definition in the ABCD approach).

Now, to achieve [1] we should avoid the current "brute force"
approach, store the graph properly, and navigate it locally
with a depth first algorithm. This does not sound that hard,
as the logic for breaking cycles in the the traversal is the
one we already have.

The hard part (IMHO) is achieving [2] without the extended SSA
form (the additional PI definitions).
The problem is that in the ABCD paper they can safely assume
that *one* single graph describes the whole method, because
when a variable is subject to different conditions in different
BBs they actually create different variables. In our approach,
we have (at least logically) on different graph for each BB, and
in fact we re-evaluate everything in each BB.

To get out of this mess, consider a depth-first traversal of
the idominator tree, and consider how the evaluation graphs
change in this traversal.
Basically, we have the following facts:

- In the start BB, the graph is composed by all the SSA
  variable definitions, no more, and no less. This is true
  for two reasons:
  - All the SSA definitions are "statically valid" in the
    whole method. Maybe each given variable is not used in
    every BB, but its single static assignment is OK.
  - The entry BB has no entry condition, so no other arcs
    can be added to the graph.
- Entering each BB in the depth first traversal of the
  idominator tree, the graph is the previous graph *plus*
  the arcs representing the relations implied by the entry
  condition of this BB. Every evaluation that has so far been
  performed on a variable is still valid, and can only be made
  "more specific" (or more "powerful", or "detailed", think of
  it as you like) by the conditions added in this BB.

This second observation is really important: every evaluation
performed early in the depth first traversal on the idominator
tree is still valid, so we can avoid repeating it (this is
what we aimed for in point [2]). We can, of course, "refine"
it using the new conditions, but these new results must be
discarded when we exit from the evaluation phase of this BB
(by definition, they are valid only in the region of the tree
that is dominated by this BB).

This suggests to restructure the evaluation phase as a depth
first traversal of the idominator tree. The function that
performs the evaluation should be properly recursive, and the
results for each BB should be kept (on the stack, or pointed to
by some context on the stack) to be used by the other BBs down
the tree.

I really hope this makes sense to somebody ;-) otherwise just

I'm going to decide the exact data structures to be used in
the next days, and then rewrite the thing, but comments on the
approach are really appreciated.


P.S. One thing the ABCD paper totally overlooks is the issue
of array indexes (over)|(under)flowing after an arithmetical
operation. Has anybody a clue of why this is not an issue for

Mono-devel-list mailing list
Mono-devel-list at lists.ximian.com

More information about the Mono-devel-list mailing list