This replicates existing and/or tests to also test variants using
select. This should help us get a more accurate view on which
optimizations we're missing if we disable the select -> and/or
fold.
This is a repeat of 1880092722 from 2009. We should have less risk
of hitting bugs at this point because we auto-generate positive CHECK
lines only, but this makes things consistent.
Copying the original commit msg:
"Change tests from "opt %s" to "opt < %s" so that opt doesn't see the
input filename so that opt doesn't print the input filename in the
output so that grep lines in the tests don't unintentionally match
strings in the input filename."
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/KtL
This also shows that the fold added in D67412 / r372257
was too specific, and the new fold allows those test cases
to be handled more generically, therefore i delete now-dead code.
This is yet again motivated by
D67122 "[UBSan][clang][compiler-rt] Applying non-zero offset to nullptr is undefined behaviour"
llvm-svn: 372912
Summary:
This is again motivated by D67122 sanitizer check enhancement.
That patch seemingly worsens `-fsanitize=pointer-overflow`
overhead from 25% to 50%, which strongly implies missing folds.
In this particular case, given
```
char* test(char& base, unsigned long offset) {
return &base - offset;
}
```
it will end up producing something like
https://godbolt.org/z/luGEju
which after optimizations reduces down to roughly
```
declare void @use64(i64)
define i1 @test(i8* dereferenceable(1) %base, i64 %offset) {
%base_int = ptrtoint i8* %base to i64
%adjusted = sub i64 %base_int, %offset
call void @use64(i64 %adjusted)
%not_null = icmp ne i64 %adjusted, 0
%no_underflow = icmp ule i64 %adjusted, %base_int
%no_underflow_and_not_null = and i1 %not_null, %no_underflow
ret i1 %no_underflow_and_not_null
}
```
Without D67122 there was no `%not_null`,
and in this particular case we can "get rid of it", by merging two checks:
Here we are checking: `Base u>= Offset && (Base u- Offset) != 0`, but that is simply `Base u> Offset`
Alive proofs:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/QOs
The `@llvm.usub.with.overflow` pattern itself is not handled here
because this is the main pattern, that we currently consider canonical.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43251
Reviewers: spatel, nikic, xbolva00, majnemer
Reviewed By: xbolva00, majnemer
Subscribers: vsk, majnemer, xbolva00, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67356
llvm-svn: 372341
Summary:
I don't have a direct motivational case for this,
but it would be good to have this for completeness/symmetry.
This pattern is basically the motivational pattern from
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43251
but with different predicate that requires that the offset is non-zero.
The completeness bit comes from the fact that a similar pattern (offset != zero)
will be needed for https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43259,
so it'd seem to be good to not overlook very similar patterns..
Proofs: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/21b
Also, there is something odd with `isKnownNonZero()`, if the non-zero
knowledge was specified as an assumption, it didn't pick it up (PR43267)
With this, i see no other missing folds for
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43251
Reviewers: spatel, nikic, xbolva00
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67412
llvm-svn: 372257
I only want to ensure that %offset is non-zero there,
it doesn't matter how that info is conveyed.
As filed in PR43267, the assumption way does not work.
llvm-svn: 371550
Nikita Popov