SCEVExpander incorrectly marks generated subtractions as nuw/nsw

It is not sound to mark the increment operation as `nuw` or `nsw`
based on a proof off of the add recurrence if the increment operation
we emit happens to be a `sub` instruction.

I could not come up with a test case for this -- the cases where
SCEVExpander decides to emit a `sub` instruction is quite small, and I
cannot think of a way I'd be able to get SCEV to prove that the
increment does not overflow in those cases.

Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7899

llvm-svn: 230673
This commit is contained in:
Sanjoy Das 2015-02-26 19:51:35 +00:00
parent fa147e02d8
commit 54ef895137
1 changed files with 6 additions and 3 deletions

View File

@ -1182,9 +1182,6 @@ SCEVExpander::getAddRecExprPHILiterally(const SCEVAddRecExpr *Normalized,
}
}
bool IncrementIsNUW = IsIncrementNUW(SE, Normalized);
bool IncrementIsNSW = IsIncrementNSW(SE, Normalized);
// Save the original insertion point so we can restore it when we're done.
BuilderType::InsertPointGuard Guard(Builder);
@ -1219,6 +1216,12 @@ SCEVExpander::getAddRecExprPHILiterally(const SCEVAddRecExpr *Normalized,
// Expand the step somewhere that dominates the loop header.
Value *StepV = expandCodeFor(Step, IntTy, L->getHeader()->begin());
// The no-wrap behavior proved by IsIncrement(NUW|NSW) is only applicable if
// we actually do emit an addition. It does not apply if we emit a
// subtraction.
bool IncrementIsNUW = !useSubtract && IsIncrementNUW(SE, Normalized);
bool IncrementIsNSW = !useSubtract && IsIncrementNSW(SE, Normalized);
// Create the PHI.
BasicBlock *Header = L->getHeader();
Builder.SetInsertPoint(Header, Header->begin());