feat: re-enable early mem2reg pass

[TomAFrench]

Description

Problem*

Resolves

Summary*

Wanted to have a look at whether we can reenable this after the mem2reg internal review.

I've got a PR in aztec-packages to test whether this is going to break over there: AztecProtocol/aztec-packages#16814

Additional Context

Documentation*

Check one:

• No documentation needed.
• Documentation included in this PR.
• [For Experimental Features] Documentation to be submitted in a separate PR.

PR Checklist*

• I have tested the changes locally.
• I have formatted the changes with Prettier and/or cargo fmt on default settings.

[github-actions]

Changes to number of Brillig opcodes executed

Generated at commit: ed75482f870c9fcf89dc0d0a089c8cb247104642, compared to commit: 5e276642b138346845d42323992a9445eb2255f9

🧾 Summary (10% most significant diffs)

Program	Brillig opcodes (+/-)	%
regression_6674_3_inliner_max	-60 ✅	-4.98%
regression_6674_3_inliner_zero	-60 ✅	-4.98%
a_7_function_inliner_max	-258 ✅	-12.58%
references_inliner_max	-40 ✅	-21.74%
regression_unused_nested_array_get_inliner_max	-59 ✅	-76.62%
regression_unused_nested_array_get_inliner_min	-59 ✅	-76.62%
regression_unused_nested_array_get_inliner_zero	-59 ✅	-76.62%

---

Full diff report 👇

Program	Brillig opcodes (+/-)	%
fold_numeric_generic_poseidon_inliner_zero	4,492 (+114)	+2.60%
no_predicates_numeric_generic_poseidon_inliner_zero	4,492 (+114)	+2.60%
bench_2_to_17_inliner_zero	460,746 (+3,272)	+0.72%
hashmap_inliner_zero	71,978 (+504)	+0.71%
hashmap_inliner_min	80,498 (+552)	+0.69%
fold_2_to_17_inliner_zero	1,053,461 (+6,224)	+0.59%
fold_2_to_17_inliner_min	1,053,533 (+6,224)	+0.59%
bench_2_to_17_inliner_min	553,901 (+3,272)	+0.59%
fold_numeric_generic_poseidon_inliner_min	4,642 (+27)	+0.59%
no_predicates_numeric_generic_poseidon_inliner_min	4,642 (+27)	+0.59%
uhashmap_inliner_min	175,041 (+701)	+0.40%
uhashmap_inliner_zero	164,841 (+555)	+0.34%
array_sort_inliner_min	990 (+1)	+0.10%
regression_5252_inliner_min	940,367 (+30)	+0.00%
brillig_cow_regression_inliner_max	194,344 (-1)	-0.00%
brillig_cow_regression_inliner_zero	194,344 (-1)	-0.00%
fold_2_to_17_inliner_max	773,779 (-4)	-0.00%
regression_5252_inliner_zero	927,840 (-570)	-0.06%
poseidonsponge_x5_254_inliner_zero	186,372 (-120)	-0.06%
poseidonsponge_x5_254_inliner_max	152,735 (-122)	-0.08%
regression_5252_inliner_max	759,158 (-610)	-0.08%
poseidon_bn254_hash_width_3_inliner_max	137,192 (-119)	-0.09%
uhashmap_inliner_max	143,416 (-155)	-0.11%
array_to_slice_inliner_zero	1,703 (-4)	-0.23%
array_to_slice_inliner_max	949 (-4)	-0.42%
array_sort_inliner_max	868 (-4)	-0.46%
array_sort_inliner_zero	868 (-4)	-0.46%
numeric_type_alias_inliner_max	1,312 (-7)	-0.53%
numeric_type_alias_inliner_zero	1,312 (-7)	-0.53%
hashmap_inliner_max	56,630 (-326)	-0.57%
regression_6674_1_inliner_max	663 (-13)	-1.92%
regression_6674_2_inliner_max	663 (-13)	-1.92%
nested_array_dynamic_inliner_max	2,572 (-70)	-2.65%
references_inliner_zero	313 (-13)	-3.99%
nested_array_in_slice_inliner_max	1,097 (-47)	-4.11%
regression_6674_3_inliner_max	1,146 (-60)	-4.98%
regression_6674_3_inliner_zero	1,146 (-60)	-4.98%
a_7_function_inliner_max	1,793 (-258)	-12.58%
references_inliner_max	144 (-40)	-21.74%
regression_unused_nested_array_get_inliner_max	18 (-59)	-76.62%
regression_unused_nested_array_get_inliner_min	18 (-59)	-76.62%
regression_unused_nested_array_get_inliner_zero	18 (-59)	-76.62%

[github-actions]

Changes to Brillig bytecode sizes

Generated at commit: ed75482f870c9fcf89dc0d0a089c8cb247104642, compared to commit: 5e276642b138346845d42323992a9445eb2255f9

🧾 Summary (10% most significant diffs)

Program	Brillig opcodes (+/-)	%
a_7_function_inliner_max	-125 ✅	-24.18%
regression_unused_nested_array_get_inliner_max	-14 ✅	-41.18%
regression_unused_nested_array_get_inliner_min	-14 ✅	-41.18%
regression_unused_nested_array_get_inliner_zero	-14 ✅	-41.18%
references_inliner_max	-62 ✅	-45.59%

---

Full diff report 👇

Program	Brillig opcodes (+/-)	%
fold_numeric_generic_poseidon_inliner_zero	503 (+6)	+1.21%
no_predicates_numeric_generic_poseidon_inliner_zero	503 (+6)	+1.21%
regression_5252_inliner_zero	3,220 (-1)	-0.03%
poseidonsponge_x5_254_inliner_zero	2,888 (-1)	-0.03%
uhashmap_inliner_min	7,421 (-4)	-0.05%
hashmap_inliner_zero	7,967 (-6)	-0.08%
poseidon_bn254_hash_width_3_inliner_max	4,836 (-4)	-0.08%
brillig_cow_regression_inliner_max	1,201 (-1)	-0.08%
brillig_cow_regression_inliner_zero	1,201 (-1)	-0.08%
regression_5252_inliner_max	3,952 (-4)	-0.10%
poseidonsponge_x5_254_inliner_max	3,668 (-4)	-0.11%
uhashmap_inliner_zero	6,923 (-16)	-0.23%
array_sort_inliner_max	409 (-2)	-0.49%
array_sort_inliner_zero	409 (-2)	-0.49%
array_to_slice_inliner_zero	700 (-4)	-0.57%
hashmap_inliner_max	18,559 (-120)	-0.64%
array_to_slice_inliner_max	491 (-4)	-0.81%
fold_2_to_17_inliner_max	466 (-4)	-0.85%
uhashmap_inliner_max	11,098 (-96)	-0.86%
numeric_type_alias_inliner_max	326 (-7)	-2.10%
numeric_type_alias_inliner_zero	326 (-7)	-2.10%
nested_array_dynamic_inliner_max	1,638 (-78)	-4.55%
regression_6674_1_inliner_max	205 (-13)	-5.96%
regression_6674_2_inliner_max	205 (-13)	-5.96%
nested_array_in_slice_inliner_max	870 (-73)	-7.74%
references_inliner_zero	198 (-17)	-7.91%
regression_6674_3_inliner_max	410 (-64)	-13.50%
regression_6674_3_inliner_zero	410 (-64)	-13.50%
a_7_function_inliner_max	392 (-125)	-24.18%
regression_unused_nested_array_get_inliner_max	20 (-14)	-41.18%
regression_unused_nested_array_get_inliner_min	20 (-14)	-41.18%
regression_unused_nested_array_get_inliner_zero	20 (-14)	-41.18%
references_inliner_max	74 (-62)	-45.59%

[github-actions]

⚠️ Performance Alert ⚠️

Possible performance regression was detected for benchmark 'Execution Time'.
Benchmark result of this commit is worse than the previous benchmark result exceeding threshold 1.20.

Benchmark suite	Current: 304e6da	Previous: 14659f3	Ratio
private-kernel-inner	0.017 s	0.014 s	1.21

This comment was automatically generated by workflow using github-action-benchmark.

CC: @TomAFrench

[github-actions]

⚠️ Performance Alert ⚠️

Possible performance regression was detected for benchmark 'Test Suite Duration'.
Benchmark result of this commit is worse than the previous benchmark result exceeding threshold 1.20.

Benchmark suite	Current: 304e6da	Previous: 14659f3	Ratio
test_report_zkpassport_noir-ecdsa_	3 s	2 s	1.50
test_report_zkpassport_noir_rsa_	1 s	0 s	+∞

This comment was automatically generated by workflow using github-action-benchmark.

CC: @TomAFrench

[vezenovm]

Good with me once CI passes on AztecProtocol/aztec-packages#16814

[TomAFrench]

I think the regressions here come from performing the LICM during the preprocessing step which results in us pulling the creation of some arrays up and out of a control-dependent loop. We're eliminating some loads in preprocessing previously which we're not doing with the new mem2reg pass.

[TomAFrench]

Taking the SSA for bench_2_to_17 just after the preprocessing pass, an example of the problematic output:

brillig(inline) fn perform_duplex f5 {
  b0(v2: &mut [Field; 3], v3: &mut [Field; 4], v4: &mut u32, v5: &mut u1):
    jmp b1(u32 0)
  b1(v6: u32):
    v8 = lt v6, u32 3
    jmpif v8 then: b2, else: b3
  b2():
    v16 = load v2 -> [Field; 3]  <---- Here we load multiple references which are only used in b4. We could load these in b4 directly as there's no scope for the reference being mutated.
    v17 = load v3 -> [Field; 4]
    v18 = load v4 -> u32
    v19 = load v5 -> u1
    v20 = lt v6, v18
    jmpif v20 then: b4, else: b5
  b3():
    v9 = load v2 -> [Field; 3]
    v10 = load v3 -> [Field; 4]
    v11 = load v4 -> u32
    v12 = load v5 -> u1
    inc_rc v10
    v15 = call poseidon2_permutation(v10, u32 4) -> [Field; 4]
    store v9 at v2
    store v15 at v3
    store v11 at v4
    store v12 at v5
    return
  b4():
    v21 = lt v6, u32 4
    constrain v21 == u1 1, "Index out of bounds"
    v23 = array_get v17, index v6 -> Field
    v24 = lt v6, u32 3
    constrain v24 == u1 1, "Index out of bounds"
    v25 = array_get v16, index v6 -> Field
    v26 = add v23, v25
    v27 = lt v6, u32 4
    constrain v27 == u1 1, "Index out of bounds"
    v28 = array_set v17, index v6, value v26
    v30 = unchecked_add v6, u32 1
    store v16 at v2
    store v28 at v3
    store v18 at v4
    store v19 at v5
    jmp b5()
  b5():
    v31 = unchecked_add v6, u32 1
    jmp b1(v31)
}

This can be compared with

brillig(inline) fn perform_duplex f5 {
  b0(v2: &mut [Field; 3], v3: &mut [Field; 4], v4: &mut u32, v5: &mut u1):
    jmp b1(u32 0)
  b1(v6: u32):
    v8 = lt v6, u32 3
    jmpif v8 then: b2, else: b3
  b2():
    v16 = load v4 -> u32
    v17 = lt v6, v16
    jmpif v17 then: b4, else: b5
  b3():
    v9 = load v3 -> [Field; 4]
    inc_rc v9
    v12 = call poseidon2_permutation(v9, u32 4) -> [Field; 4]
    v13 = load v2 -> [Field; 3]
    v14 = load v4 -> u32
    v15 = load v5 -> u1
    store v13 at v2
    store v12 at v3
    store v14 at v4
    store v15 at v5
    return
  b4():
    v18 = load v3 -> [Field; 4]
    v19 = lt v6, u32 4
    constrain v19 == u1 1, "Index out of bounds"
    v21 = array_get v18, index v6 -> Field
    v22 = load v2 -> [Field; 3]
    v23 = lt v6, u32 3
    constrain v23 == u1 1, "Index out of bounds"
    v24 = array_get v22, index v6 -> Field
    v25 = add v21, v24
    v26 = load v2 -> [Field; 3]
    v27 = load v3 -> [Field; 4]
    v28 = load v4 -> u32
    v29 = load v5 -> u1
    v30 = lt v6, u32 4
    constrain v30 == u1 1, "Index out of bounds"
    v31 = array_set v27, index v6, value v25
    store v26 at v2
    store v31 at v3
    store v28 at v4
    store v29 at v5
    jmp b5()
  b5():
    v33 = unchecked_add v6, u32 1
    jmp b1(v33)
}

[TomAFrench]

I've created an issue to track the source of the regression (at least for bench_2_to_17_inliner_zero) in #9745

[github-actions]

⚠️ Performance Alert ⚠️

Possible performance regression was detected for benchmark 'Compilation Time'.
Benchmark result of this commit is worse than the previous benchmark result exceeding threshold 1.20.

Benchmark suite	Current: dc956e8	Previous: 5e27664	Ratio
rollup-base-private	18.94 s	15.2 s	1.25
rollup-base-public	16.84 s	13.68 s	1.23

This comment was automatically generated by workflow using github-action-benchmark.

CC: @TomAFrench