As part of making ScalarEvolution's handling of pointers consistent, we
want to forbid multiplying a pointer by -1 (or any other value). This
means we can't blindly subtract pointers.
There are a few ways we could deal with this:
1. We could completely forbid subtracting pointers in getMinusSCEV()
2. We could forbid subracting pointers with different pointer bases
(this patch).
3. We could try to ptrtoint pointer operands.
The option in this patch is more friendly to non-integral pointers: code
that works with normal pointers will also work with non-integral
pointers. And it seems like there are very few places that actually
benefit from the third option.
As a minimal patch, the ScalarEvolution implementation of getMinusSCEV
still ends up subtracting pointers if they have the same base. This
should eliminate the shared pointer base, but eventually we'll need to
rewrite it to avoid negating the pointer base. I plan to do this as a
separate step to allow measuring the compile-time impact.
This doesn't cause obvious functional changes in most cases; the one
case that is significantly affected is ICmpZero handling in LSR (which
is the source of almost all the test changes). The resulting changes
seem okay to me, but suggestions welcome. As an alternative, I tried
explicitly ptrtoint'ing the operands, but the result doesn't seem
obviously better.
I deleted the test lsr-undef-in-binop.ll becuase I couldn't figure out
how to repair it to test what it was actually trying to test.
Recommitting with fix to MemoryDepChecker::isDependent.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104806
As part of making ScalarEvolution's handling of pointers consistent, we
want to forbid multiplying a pointer by -1 (or any other value). This
means we can't blindly subtract pointers.
There are a few ways we could deal with this:
1. We could completely forbid subtracting pointers in getMinusSCEV()
2. We could forbid subracting pointers with different pointer bases
(this patch).
3. We could try to ptrtoint pointer operands.
The option in this patch is more friendly to non-integral pointers: code
that works with normal pointers will also work with non-integral
pointers. And it seems like there are very few places that actually
benefit from the third option.
As a minimal patch, the ScalarEvolution implementation of getMinusSCEV
still ends up subtracting pointers if they have the same base. This
should eliminate the shared pointer base, but eventually we'll need to
rewrite it to avoid negating the pointer base. I plan to do this as a
separate step to allow measuring the compile-time impact.
This doesn't cause obvious functional changes in most cases; the one
case that is significantly affected is ICmpZero handling in LSR (which
is the source of almost all the test changes). The resulting changes
seem okay to me, but suggestions welcome. As an alternative, I tried
explicitly ptrtoint'ing the operands, but the result doesn't seem
obviously better.
I deleted the test lsr-undef-in-binop.ll becuase I couldn't figure out
how to repair it to test what it was actually trying to test.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104806
The added test case crashes before this fix:
```
opt: /repositories/llvm-project/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopStrengthReduce.cpp:5172: BasicBlock::iterator (anonymous namespace)::LSRInstance::AdjustInsertPositionForExpand(BasicBlock::iterator, const (anonymous namespace)::LSRFixup &, const (anonymous namespace)::LSRUse &, llvm::SCEVExpander &) const: Assertion `!isa<PHINode>(LowestIP) && !LowestIP->isEHPad() && !isa<DbgInfoIntrinsic>(LowestIP) && "Insertion point must be a normal instruction"' failed.
```
This is fully analogous to the previous commit,
with the pointer constant replaced to be something non-null.
The comparison here can be strength-reduced,
but the second operand of the comparison happens to be identical
to the constant pointer in the `catch` case of `landingpad`.
While LSRInstance::CollectLoopInvariantFixupsAndFormulae()
already gave up on uses in blocks ending up with EH pads,
it didn't consider this case.
Eventually, `LSRInstance::AdjustInsertPositionForExpand()`
will be called, but the original insertion point it will get
is the user instruction itself, and it doesn't want to
deal with EH pads, and asserts as much.
It would seem that this basically never happens in-the-wild,
otherwise it would have been reported already,
so it seems safe to take the cautious approach,
and just not deal with such users.
Eli Friedman