maxjhandsome
/
llvm-project
forked from OSchip/llvm-project
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Releases Wiki Activity
llvm-project/llvm/test/Analysis/MemorySSA/pr40754.ll

Ignoring revisions in .git-blame-ignore-revs. Click here to bypass and see the normal blame view.

56 lines
2.0 KiB
LLVM
Raw Normal View History

[MemorySSA] Make insertDef insert corresponding phi nodes. Summary: The original assumption for the insertDef method was that it would not materialize Defs out of no-where, hence it will not insert phis needed after inserting a Def. However, when cloning an instruction (use case used in LICM), we do materialize Defs "out of no-where". If the block receiving a Def has at least one other Def, then no processing is needed. If the block just received its first Def, we must check where Phi placement is needed. The only new usage of insertDef is in LICM, hence the trigger for the bug. But the original goal of the method also fails to apply for the move() method. If we move a Def from the entry point of a diamond to either the left or right blocks, then the merge block must add a phi. While this usecase does not currently occur, or may be viewed as an incorrect transformation, MSSA must behave corectly given the scenario. Resolves PR40749 and PR40754. Reviewers: george.burgess.iv Subscribers: sanjoy, jlebar, Prazek, jdoerfert, llvm-commits Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58652 llvm-svn: 355040
2019-02-28 06:20:22 +08:00
; RUN: opt -licm -enable-mssa-loop-dependency -verify-memoryssa -S < %s | FileCheck %s
; REQUIRES: asserts
target datalayout = "E-m:e-i1:8:16-i8:8:16-i64:64-f128:64-v128:64-a:8:16-n32:64"
target triple = "systemz-unknown"
@g_120 = external dso_local local_unnamed_addr global [8 x [4 x [6 x i32]]], align 4
@g_185 = external dso_local local_unnamed_addr global i32, align 4
@g_329 = external dso_local local_unnamed_addr global i16, align 2
; Function Attrs: norecurse noreturn nounwind
define dso_local void @func_65() local_unnamed_addr {
; CHECK-LABEL: @func_65()
[MemorySSA] Avoid adding Phis in the presence of unreachable blocks. Summary: If a block has all incoming values with the same MemoryAccess (ignoring incoming values from unreachable blocks), then use that incoming MemoryAccess and do not create a Phi in the first place. Revert IDF work-around added in rL372673; it should not be required unless the Def inserted is the first in its block. The patch also cleans up a series of tests, added during the many iterations on insertDef. The patch also fixes PR43438. The same issue that occurs in insertDef with "adding phis, hence the IDF of Phis is needed", can also occur in fixupDefs: the `getPreviousRecursive` call only adds Phis walking on the predecessor edges, which means there may be the case of a Phi added walking the CFG "backwards" which triggers the needs for an additional Phi in successor blocks. Such Phis are added during fixupDefs only in the presence of unreachable blocks. Hence this highlights the need to avoid adding Phis in blocks with unreachable predecessors in the first place. Reviewers: george.burgess.iv Subscribers: Prazek, sanjoy.google, llvm-commits Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67995 llvm-svn: 372932
2019-09-26 07:24:39 +08:00
label0:
br label %label1
[MemorySSA] Make insertDef insert corresponding phi nodes. Summary: The original assumption for the insertDef method was that it would not materialize Defs out of no-where, hence it will not insert phis needed after inserting a Def. However, when cloning an instruction (use case used in LICM), we do materialize Defs "out of no-where". If the block receiving a Def has at least one other Def, then no processing is needed. If the block just received its first Def, we must check where Phi placement is needed. The only new usage of insertDef is in LICM, hence the trigger for the bug. But the original goal of the method also fails to apply for the move() method. If we move a Def from the entry point of a diamond to either the left or right blocks, then the merge block must add a phi. While this usecase does not currently occur, or may be viewed as an incorrect transformation, MSSA must behave corectly given the scenario. Resolves PR40749 and PR40754. Reviewers: george.burgess.iv Subscribers: sanjoy, jlebar, Prazek, jdoerfert, llvm-commits Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58652 llvm-svn: 355040
2019-02-28 06:20:22 +08:00
[MemorySSA] Avoid adding Phis in the presence of unreachable blocks. Summary: If a block has all incoming values with the same MemoryAccess (ignoring incoming values from unreachable blocks), then use that incoming MemoryAccess and do not create a Phi in the first place. Revert IDF work-around added in rL372673; it should not be required unless the Def inserted is the first in its block. The patch also cleans up a series of tests, added during the many iterations on insertDef. The patch also fixes PR43438. The same issue that occurs in insertDef with "adding phis, hence the IDF of Phis is needed", can also occur in fixupDefs: the `getPreviousRecursive` call only adds Phis walking on the predecessor edges, which means there may be the case of a Phi added walking the CFG "backwards" which triggers the needs for an additional Phi in successor blocks. Such Phis are added during fixupDefs only in the presence of unreachable blocks. Hence this highlights the need to avoid adding Phis in blocks with unreachable predecessors in the first place. Reviewers: george.burgess.iv Subscribers: Prazek, sanjoy.google, llvm-commits Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67995 llvm-svn: 372932
2019-09-26 07:24:39 +08:00
label1: ; preds = %.thread, %label0
br label %label2
[MemorySSA] Make insertDef insert corresponding phi nodes. Summary: The original assumption for the insertDef method was that it would not materialize Defs out of no-where, hence it will not insert phis needed after inserting a Def. However, when cloning an instruction (use case used in LICM), we do materialize Defs "out of no-where". If the block receiving a Def has at least one other Def, then no processing is needed. If the block just received its first Def, we must check where Phi placement is needed. The only new usage of insertDef is in LICM, hence the trigger for the bug. But the original goal of the method also fails to apply for the move() method. If we move a Def from the entry point of a diamond to either the left or right blocks, then the merge block must add a phi. While this usecase does not currently occur, or may be viewed as an incorrect transformation, MSSA must behave corectly given the scenario. Resolves PR40749 and PR40754. Reviewers: george.burgess.iv Subscribers: sanjoy, jlebar, Prazek, jdoerfert, llvm-commits Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58652 llvm-svn: 355040
2019-02-28 06:20:22 +08:00
[MemorySSA] Avoid adding Phis in the presence of unreachable blocks. Summary: If a block has all incoming values with the same MemoryAccess (ignoring incoming values from unreachable blocks), then use that incoming MemoryAccess and do not create a Phi in the first place. Revert IDF work-around added in rL372673; it should not be required unless the Def inserted is the first in its block. The patch also cleans up a series of tests, added during the many iterations on insertDef. The patch also fixes PR43438. The same issue that occurs in insertDef with "adding phis, hence the IDF of Phis is needed", can also occur in fixupDefs: the `getPreviousRecursive` call only adds Phis walking on the predecessor edges, which means there may be the case of a Phi added walking the CFG "backwards" which triggers the needs for an additional Phi in successor blocks. Such Phis are added during fixupDefs only in the presence of unreachable blocks. Hence this highlights the need to avoid adding Phis in blocks with unreachable predecessors in the first place. Reviewers: george.burgess.iv Subscribers: Prazek, sanjoy.google, llvm-commits Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67995 llvm-svn: 372932
2019-09-26 07:24:39 +08:00
label2: ; preds = %.critedge, %label1
br label %label3
[MemorySSA] Make insertDef insert corresponding phi nodes. Summary: The original assumption for the insertDef method was that it would not materialize Defs out of no-where, hence it will not insert phis needed after inserting a Def. However, when cloning an instruction (use case used in LICM), we do materialize Defs "out of no-where". If the block receiving a Def has at least one other Def, then no processing is needed. If the block just received its first Def, we must check where Phi placement is needed. The only new usage of insertDef is in LICM, hence the trigger for the bug. But the original goal of the method also fails to apply for the move() method. If we move a Def from the entry point of a diamond to either the left or right blocks, then the merge block must add a phi. While this usecase does not currently occur, or may be viewed as an incorrect transformation, MSSA must behave corectly given the scenario. Resolves PR40749 and PR40754. Reviewers: george.burgess.iv Subscribers: sanjoy, jlebar, Prazek, jdoerfert, llvm-commits Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58652 llvm-svn: 355040
2019-02-28 06:20:22 +08:00
[MemorySSA] Avoid adding Phis in the presence of unreachable blocks. Summary: If a block has all incoming values with the same MemoryAccess (ignoring incoming values from unreachable blocks), then use that incoming MemoryAccess and do not create a Phi in the first place. Revert IDF work-around added in rL372673; it should not be required unless the Def inserted is the first in its block. The patch also cleans up a series of tests, added during the many iterations on insertDef. The patch also fixes PR43438. The same issue that occurs in insertDef with "adding phis, hence the IDF of Phis is needed", can also occur in fixupDefs: the `getPreviousRecursive` call only adds Phis walking on the predecessor edges, which means there may be the case of a Phi added walking the CFG "backwards" which triggers the needs for an additional Phi in successor blocks. Such Phis are added during fixupDefs only in the presence of unreachable blocks. Hence this highlights the need to avoid adding Phis in blocks with unreachable predecessors in the first place. Reviewers: george.burgess.iv Subscribers: Prazek, sanjoy.google, llvm-commits Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67995 llvm-svn: 372932
2019-09-26 07:24:39 +08:00
label3: ; preds = %label5, %label2
%storemerge = phi i32 [ 0, %label2 ], [ %tmp6, %label5 ]
[MemorySSA] Make insertDef insert corresponding phi nodes. Summary: The original assumption for the insertDef method was that it would not materialize Defs out of no-where, hence it will not insert phis needed after inserting a Def. However, when cloning an instruction (use case used in LICM), we do materialize Defs "out of no-where". If the block receiving a Def has at least one other Def, then no processing is needed. If the block just received its first Def, we must check where Phi placement is needed. The only new usage of insertDef is in LICM, hence the trigger for the bug. But the original goal of the method also fails to apply for the move() method. If we move a Def from the entry point of a diamond to either the left or right blocks, then the merge block must add a phi. While this usecase does not currently occur, or may be viewed as an incorrect transformation, MSSA must behave corectly given the scenario. Resolves PR40749 and PR40754. Reviewers: george.burgess.iv Subscribers: sanjoy, jlebar, Prazek, jdoerfert, llvm-commits Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58652 llvm-svn: 355040
2019-02-28 06:20:22 +08:00
store i32 %storemerge, i32* @g_185, align 4
[MemorySSA] Avoid adding Phis in the presence of unreachable blocks. Summary: If a block has all incoming values with the same MemoryAccess (ignoring incoming values from unreachable blocks), then use that incoming MemoryAccess and do not create a Phi in the first place. Revert IDF work-around added in rL372673; it should not be required unless the Def inserted is the first in its block. The patch also cleans up a series of tests, added during the many iterations on insertDef. The patch also fixes PR43438. The same issue that occurs in insertDef with "adding phis, hence the IDF of Phis is needed", can also occur in fixupDefs: the `getPreviousRecursive` call only adds Phis walking on the predecessor edges, which means there may be the case of a Phi added walking the CFG "backwards" which triggers the needs for an additional Phi in successor blocks. Such Phis are added during fixupDefs only in the presence of unreachable blocks. Hence this highlights the need to avoid adding Phis in blocks with unreachable predecessors in the first place. Reviewers: george.burgess.iv Subscribers: Prazek, sanjoy.google, llvm-commits Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67995 llvm-svn: 372932
2019-09-26 07:24:39 +08:00
%tmp4 = icmp ult i32 %storemerge, 2
br i1 %tmp4, label %label5, label %.thread.loopexit
label5: ; preds = %label3
%tmp6 = add i32 %storemerge, 1
%tmp7 = zext i32 %tmp6 to i64
%tmp8 = getelementptr [8 x [4 x [6 x i32]]], [8 x [4 x [6 x i32]]]* @g_120, i64 0, i64 undef, i64 %tmp7, i64 undef
%tmp9 = load i32, i32* %tmp8, align 4
%tmp10 = icmp eq i32 %tmp9, 0
br i1 %tmp10, label %label3, label %label11
label11: ; preds = %label5
%storemerge.lcssa4 = phi i32 [ %storemerge, %label5 ]
%tmp12 = icmp eq i32 %storemerge.lcssa4, 0
br i1 %tmp12, label %.critedge, label %.thread.loopexit3
.critedge: ; preds = %label11
[MemorySSA] Make insertDef insert corresponding phi nodes. Summary: The original assumption for the insertDef method was that it would not materialize Defs out of no-where, hence it will not insert phis needed after inserting a Def. However, when cloning an instruction (use case used in LICM), we do materialize Defs "out of no-where". If the block receiving a Def has at least one other Def, then no processing is needed. If the block just received its first Def, we must check where Phi placement is needed. The only new usage of insertDef is in LICM, hence the trigger for the bug. But the original goal of the method also fails to apply for the move() method. If we move a Def from the entry point of a diamond to either the left or right blocks, then the merge block must add a phi. While this usecase does not currently occur, or may be viewed as an incorrect transformation, MSSA must behave corectly given the scenario. Resolves PR40749 and PR40754. Reviewers: george.burgess.iv Subscribers: sanjoy, jlebar, Prazek, jdoerfert, llvm-commits Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58652 llvm-svn: 355040
2019-02-28 06:20:22 +08:00
store i16 0, i16* @g_329, align 2
[MemorySSA] Avoid adding Phis in the presence of unreachable blocks. Summary: If a block has all incoming values with the same MemoryAccess (ignoring incoming values from unreachable blocks), then use that incoming MemoryAccess and do not create a Phi in the first place. Revert IDF work-around added in rL372673; it should not be required unless the Def inserted is the first in its block. The patch also cleans up a series of tests, added during the many iterations on insertDef. The patch also fixes PR43438. The same issue that occurs in insertDef with "adding phis, hence the IDF of Phis is needed", can also occur in fixupDefs: the `getPreviousRecursive` call only adds Phis walking on the predecessor edges, which means there may be the case of a Phi added walking the CFG "backwards" which triggers the needs for an additional Phi in successor blocks. Such Phis are added during fixupDefs only in the presence of unreachable blocks. Hence this highlights the need to avoid adding Phis in blocks with unreachable predecessors in the first place. Reviewers: george.burgess.iv Subscribers: Prazek, sanjoy.google, llvm-commits Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67995 llvm-svn: 372932
2019-09-26 07:24:39 +08:00
br label %label2
[MemorySSA] Make insertDef insert corresponding phi nodes. Summary: The original assumption for the insertDef method was that it would not materialize Defs out of no-where, hence it will not insert phis needed after inserting a Def. However, when cloning an instruction (use case used in LICM), we do materialize Defs "out of no-where". If the block receiving a Def has at least one other Def, then no processing is needed. If the block just received its first Def, we must check where Phi placement is needed. The only new usage of insertDef is in LICM, hence the trigger for the bug. But the original goal of the method also fails to apply for the move() method. If we move a Def from the entry point of a diamond to either the left or right blocks, then the merge block must add a phi. While this usecase does not currently occur, or may be viewed as an incorrect transformation, MSSA must behave corectly given the scenario. Resolves PR40749 and PR40754. Reviewers: george.burgess.iv Subscribers: sanjoy, jlebar, Prazek, jdoerfert, llvm-commits Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58652 llvm-svn: 355040
2019-02-28 06:20:22 +08:00
[MemorySSA] Avoid adding Phis in the presence of unreachable blocks. Summary: If a block has all incoming values with the same MemoryAccess (ignoring incoming values from unreachable blocks), then use that incoming MemoryAccess and do not create a Phi in the first place. Revert IDF work-around added in rL372673; it should not be required unless the Def inserted is the first in its block. The patch also cleans up a series of tests, added during the many iterations on insertDef. The patch also fixes PR43438. The same issue that occurs in insertDef with "adding phis, hence the IDF of Phis is needed", can also occur in fixupDefs: the `getPreviousRecursive` call only adds Phis walking on the predecessor edges, which means there may be the case of a Phi added walking the CFG "backwards" which triggers the needs for an additional Phi in successor blocks. Such Phis are added during fixupDefs only in the presence of unreachable blocks. Hence this highlights the need to avoid adding Phis in blocks with unreachable predecessors in the first place. Reviewers: george.burgess.iv Subscribers: Prazek, sanjoy.google, llvm-commits Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67995 llvm-svn: 372932
2019-09-26 07:24:39 +08:00
.thread.loopexit: ; preds = %label3
[MemorySSA] Make insertDef insert corresponding phi nodes. Summary: The original assumption for the insertDef method was that it would not materialize Defs out of no-where, hence it will not insert phis needed after inserting a Def. However, when cloning an instruction (use case used in LICM), we do materialize Defs "out of no-where". If the block receiving a Def has at least one other Def, then no processing is needed. If the block just received its first Def, we must check where Phi placement is needed. The only new usage of insertDef is in LICM, hence the trigger for the bug. But the original goal of the method also fails to apply for the move() method. If we move a Def from the entry point of a diamond to either the left or right blocks, then the merge block must add a phi. While this usecase does not currently occur, or may be viewed as an incorrect transformation, MSSA must behave corectly given the scenario. Resolves PR40749 and PR40754. Reviewers: george.burgess.iv Subscribers: sanjoy, jlebar, Prazek, jdoerfert, llvm-commits Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58652 llvm-svn: 355040
2019-02-28 06:20:22 +08:00
br label %.thread
[MemorySSA] Avoid adding Phis in the presence of unreachable blocks. Summary: If a block has all incoming values with the same MemoryAccess (ignoring incoming values from unreachable blocks), then use that incoming MemoryAccess and do not create a Phi in the first place. Revert IDF work-around added in rL372673; it should not be required unless the Def inserted is the first in its block. The patch also cleans up a series of tests, added during the many iterations on insertDef. The patch also fixes PR43438. The same issue that occurs in insertDef with "adding phis, hence the IDF of Phis is needed", can also occur in fixupDefs: the `getPreviousRecursive` call only adds Phis walking on the predecessor edges, which means there may be the case of a Phi added walking the CFG "backwards" which triggers the needs for an additional Phi in successor blocks. Such Phis are added during fixupDefs only in the presence of unreachable blocks. Hence this highlights the need to avoid adding Phis in blocks with unreachable predecessors in the first place. Reviewers: george.burgess.iv Subscribers: Prazek, sanjoy.google, llvm-commits Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67995 llvm-svn: 372932
2019-09-26 07:24:39 +08:00
.thread.loopexit3: ; preds = %label11
[MemorySSA] Make insertDef insert corresponding phi nodes. Summary: The original assumption for the insertDef method was that it would not materialize Defs out of no-where, hence it will not insert phis needed after inserting a Def. However, when cloning an instruction (use case used in LICM), we do materialize Defs "out of no-where". If the block receiving a Def has at least one other Def, then no processing is needed. If the block just received its first Def, we must check where Phi placement is needed. The only new usage of insertDef is in LICM, hence the trigger for the bug. But the original goal of the method also fails to apply for the move() method. If we move a Def from the entry point of a diamond to either the left or right blocks, then the merge block must add a phi. While this usecase does not currently occur, or may be viewed as an incorrect transformation, MSSA must behave corectly given the scenario. Resolves PR40749 and PR40754. Reviewers: george.burgess.iv Subscribers: sanjoy, jlebar, Prazek, jdoerfert, llvm-commits Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58652 llvm-svn: 355040
2019-02-28 06:20:22 +08:00
br label %.thread
.thread: ; preds = %.thread.loopexit3, %.thread.loopexit
[MemorySSA] Avoid adding Phis in the presence of unreachable blocks. Summary: If a block has all incoming values with the same MemoryAccess (ignoring incoming values from unreachable blocks), then use that incoming MemoryAccess and do not create a Phi in the first place. Revert IDF work-around added in rL372673; it should not be required unless the Def inserted is the first in its block. The patch also cleans up a series of tests, added during the many iterations on insertDef. The patch also fixes PR43438. The same issue that occurs in insertDef with "adding phis, hence the IDF of Phis is needed", can also occur in fixupDefs: the `getPreviousRecursive` call only adds Phis walking on the predecessor edges, which means there may be the case of a Phi added walking the CFG "backwards" which triggers the needs for an additional Phi in successor blocks. Such Phis are added during fixupDefs only in the presence of unreachable blocks. Hence this highlights the need to avoid adding Phis in blocks with unreachable predecessors in the first place. Reviewers: george.burgess.iv Subscribers: Prazek, sanjoy.google, llvm-commits Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67995 llvm-svn: 372932
2019-09-26 07:24:39 +08:00
br label %label1
[MemorySSA] Make insertDef insert corresponding phi nodes. Summary: The original assumption for the insertDef method was that it would not materialize Defs out of no-where, hence it will not insert phis needed after inserting a Def. However, when cloning an instruction (use case used in LICM), we do materialize Defs "out of no-where". If the block receiving a Def has at least one other Def, then no processing is needed. If the block just received its first Def, we must check where Phi placement is needed. The only new usage of insertDef is in LICM, hence the trigger for the bug. But the original goal of the method also fails to apply for the move() method. If we move a Def from the entry point of a diamond to either the left or right blocks, then the merge block must add a phi. While this usecase does not currently occur, or may be viewed as an incorrect transformation, MSSA must behave corectly given the scenario. Resolves PR40749 and PR40754. Reviewers: george.burgess.iv Subscribers: sanjoy, jlebar, Prazek, jdoerfert, llvm-commits Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58652 llvm-svn: 355040
2019-02-28 06:20:22 +08:00
}