[Here’s a shortcut to the results. But it would be best to read the post first.]

Following my previous superoptimizer post, my student Jubi and I were getting up to speed on the prerequisites — SMT solvers, LLVM internals, etc. — when Googler Peter Collingbourne contacted me saying that he had recently gotten a superoptimizer up and running and might I be interested in working with him on it? I read his code and found it to be charmingly clear and simple. Also, one of my basic principles in doing research is to avoid competing, since competition wastes resources and burns students because the resulting race to publication effectively has an arbitrary winner. So I immediately started feeding bug reports to Peter.

The new superoptimizer, Souper, makes a few simplifying assumptions:

- The only optimization candidates that it considers are the true and false values. Therefore, at present Souper only harvests expressions that compute an i1: a one-bit integer, which is how Booleans are represented in LLVM. Thus, the result of a Souper run is a collection of expressions that LLVM could have — but did not — evaluate to either true or false.
- It doesn’t yet have models for all instructions or for all undefined behaviors for the instructions it does support.

These assumptions need to be relaxed. One generalization that should be pretty easy is to harvest expressions that end up as integers of arbitrary width. The interesting thing about this is that we cannot take time to check if every harvested expression evaluates to, for example, every possible value that an i32 can take. What we will do instead is to ask the SMT solver to synthesize the equivalent constant. The problem is that by default, when we make an equivalence query to an SMT solver, it is an unsat result that signals equivalence, and unsat doesn’t come with a model — it indicates failure to find a model. It turns out there’s a cute trick (which I learned from Nuno Lopes) involving a quantifier which flips a query around such that an equivalence results in sat, and therefore a model, from which we can pluck the synthesized constant. Consider this Z3/Python code where we’re asking, for a variety of constants c, how to express i*c (where i is an integer variable) in the form i<<x + i<<y + i<<z:

from z3 import * s = Solver() def checkit (c): s.push() i, x, y, z = BitVecs('i x y z',32) q = ForAll (i, i*c == ((i<<x) + (i<<y) + (i<<z))) s.add(q) s.add(x>=0, x<32) s.add(y>=0, y<32) s.add(z>=0, z<32) if s.check() == sat: m = s.model() print ("i * " + str(c) + " == i<<" + str(m.evaluate(x)) + " + i<<" + str(m.evaluate(y)) + " + i<<" + str(m.evaluate(z))) else: print "i * " + str(c) + " has no model" s.pop() for m in range(100): checkit(m)

This is just an example but it’s the kind of thing that might make sense on a small embedded processor where the integer multiply instruction is expensive or doesn’t exist. The results include:

**
**

i * 28 == i<<4 + i<<3 + i<<2 i * 29 has no model i * 30 has no model i * 31 has no model i * 32 == i<<4 + i<<3 + i<<3 i * 33 == i<<4 + i<<4 + i<<0

The full set of results is here. I particularly enjoyed the solver's solutions for the first three cases. So we know that the synthesis part of a superoptimizer is possible and in fact probably not all that difficult. But that's a digression that we'll return to in a later post; let's get back to the main topic.

Now I'll show you how to read Souper's output. You may find it useful to keep the LLVM instruction set reference handy. Here's an optimization report:

**
**

%0:i32 = var %1:i32 = mul 4294967294:i32, %0 %2:i1 = eq 1:i32, %1 cand %2 0:i1

The first line tells us that %0 has type i32 -- a 32-bit integer -- corresponding to a signed or unsigned int in C/C++, and that it is a variable: an input to the superoptimized code that may hold any value. Reasoning about any-valued variables is hard but solvers are good at it and that is the entire point of the superoptimizer.

The second line tells us that %1 is a new i32 computed by multiplying %0 by -2. The third line tells us that %2 is a new i1 -- a Boolean or 1-bit integer -- computed by seeing if %1 is equal to 1. The last line, starting with "cand", is Souper telling us that it believes %2 will always take the value 0. If Souper tells us this when running on optimized code, it has found a missed optimization. In this case LLVM has missed the fact that multiplying an arbitrary value by an even number can never result in an odd number. Is this a useful optimization to implement in LLVM? I don't know, but GCC does it, see the bottom of this page.

Souper finds many missed optimizations that fit this general pattern:

**
**

%0:i32 = var %1:i64 = sext %0 %2:i64 = sdiv 2036854775807:i64, %1 %3:i1 = ne 0:i64, %2 cand %3 1:i1

Here the observation is that if we divide a large constant by an arbitrary 32-bit value, the result cannot be zero. GCC does not find this one.

Some Souper output contains path constraints:

**
**

%0:i32 = var %1:i1 = eq 0:i32, %0 pc %1 1:i1 %2:i32 = addnsw 1:i32, %0 %3:i1 = slt %2, 2:i32 cand %3 1:i1

Here, at line 3, we learn that %1 must take the value 1 in the remaining code due to a path constraint. In the original LLVM code there was a conditional branch exiting if %1 had the value 0. Since %1 has the value 1, we can infer, in the remaining code, that %0 contains 0. Thus, %2 contains 1 and the expression %2 < 2 must evaluate to true.

Finally, this charming example exploits the fact that if the product of two numbers is not zero, then neither of the numbers could have been zero:

**
**

%0:i32 = var %1:i32 = var %2:i32 = mul %0, %1 %3:i1 = eq 0:i32, %2 pc %3 0:i1 %4:i1 = eq 0:i32, %0 cand %4 0:i1

One more thing that you might see in the full set of results is an entry like this: `%0 = block`. This means (more or less) that %0 is a value that is going to pass through the code to a phi node without being otherwise used, this is useful for increasing Souper's precision.

I think that's about all you need to know in order to read the full set of results from a couple days of running Csmith, Souper, and C-Reduce in a loop. First, we wait for Souper to find a missed optimization and then second, we find a minimal C program that exhibits the missed optimization. The results have been ranked in a way that attempts to push more similar results (that are more likely to be duplicates) lower in the list.

So far, the most common pattern that comes out of Souper's findings is that LLVM needs an integer range analysis. Such an analysis would also help eliminate integer overflow checks, one of my hobby horses. LLVM also doesn't always propagate information that would be best represented at the bit level, such as the even/odd distinction required for the first optimization that I discussed. Finally, LLVM does not always learn from branches. My not-necessarily-educated guess is that all of this is a symptom of LLVM's heavy reliance on the instruction combiner, which is not so much an optimization pass as a loose federation of a few hundred peephole passes.

Some of the missing LLVM optimizations won't be hard to implement for people have passable C++ and who have spent some time becoming familiar with the instruction combiner. But here are a few things we need to keep in mind:

- One might ask: Does it make sense to harvest missed optimizations from randomly generated code? My initial idea was that since Csmith's programs are free from undefined behaviors, the resulting optimizations would be less likely to be evil exploitation of undefined behaviors. But also I did it because it was easy and I was curious what the results would look like. My judgement is the the results are interesting enough to deserve a blog post. Perhaps an easier way to avoid exploiting undefined behavior would be to add a command line option telling Souper to avoid exploiting undefined behaviors.
- For each missed optimization we should do a cost/benefit analysis. The cost of implementing a new optimization is making LLVM a bit bigger and a bit more likely to contain a bug. The benefit is potential speedup of code that contains the idioms.
- Although the reduced C programs can be useful, you should look at Souper output first and the C code second. For one thing, the Boolean that Souper finds is sometimes a bit obscured in the C code. For another, the C-Reduce output is somewhat under-parenthesized -- it will test your knowledge of C's operator precedence rules. Finally C-Reduce has missed some opportunities to fold constants, so for example we see ~1 instead of -2 in the 2nd example from the top.
- Each missed optimization found by Souper should be seen as a member of a class of missed optimizations. So the goal is obviously not to teach LLVM to recognize the specific cases found by Souper, but rather to teach it to be smart about some entire class of optimizations. My belief is that this generalization step can be somewhat automated, but that is a research problem.
- Although all of the optimizations that I've looked at are correct, there's always the possibility that some of them are wrong, for example due to a bug in Souper or STP.

This article presents some very early results. I hope that it is the beginning of a virtuous circle where Souper and LLVM can both be strengthened over time. It will be particularly interesting to see what kinds of optimizations are missing in LLVM code emitted by rustc, GHC, or llgo.

**UPDATE:** Here are some bugs that people have filed or fixed in response to these results:

- Optimize signed icmp of -(zext V)
- Optimize integral reciprocal (udiv 1, x and sdiv 1, x) to not use division
- ComputeMaskedBits & friends should know that multiplying by a power of two leaves low bits clear

It's very cool that people are acting on this! Please let me know if you know of more results than are listed here.

## { 9 } Comments

Interesting results! I filed:

http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=19711

ComputeMaskedBits & friends should know that multiplying by a power of two leaves low bits clear

You’re right that the integer range analysis in LLVM is weaker than it should be. The historical reason for this is that many though many attempts were made at tackling this problem, they all tried to handle a very broad class of the issue, and crumbled under their own weight (and compile time). A simple and elegant solution that handled common cases is all we really need IMO.

How long does this take to run? If the runtime isn’t unbearably long, it would be interesting to see superoptimization opportunities on, say, SPEC or maybe even real-world applications.

Joshua, right now it is very fast because it’s the candidate search is trivial. But I plan to slow it down a whole lot! Of course we can leave the fast search available via command line options.

I’ll start posting more Souper results soon. I don’t think there’s a huge rush since there’s plenty of stuff to digest from just this first run.

Something that I’d really like to do is correlate missed optimizations with profile data in order to point out ones that noticeably affect runtime.

Thanks Chris!

Yeah, I saw a lot of stuff in there that I thought that InstCombine already tries to handle. So hopefully this tool will be useful in fixing up some blind spots in the peephole optimizers.

I’m still somewhat surprised at how much compiler developers avoid slow optimizations. Debug builds should be fast, sure. But for some applications a few percent faster binaries at the expense of 10x or more at compile time would be compute well spent.

How hard would it be to allow dynamically injecting peep hole optimizations into LLVM? If that wouldn’t be to hard, then Souper could be used to generate a custom set of optimizations for a specific source at a much lower cost than generalizing them and adding them to the base compiler. (IIRC that ideas been more or less proposed before but it sounds like the theory side is rapidly turning into practice.)

Hi bcs, I agree that this is worth exploring. It doesn’t sound very difficult at all, really, although I’d be slow to trust the resulting binaries in production.

Also I think the speed issues can be largely solved by caching code fragments that have been shown to optimize (or not).

I cannot not comment that ~1 is in every way as much of a constant as -2, since in C’s grammar, only positive numbers are constants. In other words, if ~1 is not a constant because it applies a unary operator to an expression, then -2 is not a constant either.

“One might ask: Does it make sense to harvest missed optimizations from randomly generated code?”

Only if the resulting optimization pass can be synthesized (e.g., a new subpart of the instruction combiner). If human attention is required, you want to be looking at real programs to avoid wasting time optimizing unused corners of the language. bcs’s idea is a good way to prioritize cases from real programs, too — implement the ones with the most benefit.

Jeffrey, you’re not totally correct. These results are useful in pointing out things that people thought were being optimized, but aren’t. Also they’re useful in pointing out things that are just embarrassing not to do.

But yes, of course, we want to use real application code to drive this work most of the time.