This patch fixes the problem of SimplifyBranchOnICmpChain that occurs
when extra values are Undef or poison.
Suppose the %mode is 51 and the %Cond is poison, and let's look at the
case below.
```
%A = icmp ne i32 %mode, 0
%B = icmp ne i32 %mode, 51
%C = select i1 %A, i1 %B, i1 false
%D = select i1 %C, i1 %Cond, i1 false
br i1 %D, label %T, label %F
=>
br i1 %Cond, label %switch.early.test, label %F
switch.early.test:
switch i32 %mode, label %T [
i32 51, label %F
i32 0, label %F
]
```
incorrectness: https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/BWScX
Code before transformation will not raise UB because %C and %D is false,
and it will not use %Cond. But after transformation, %Cond is being used
immediately, and it will raise UB.
This problem can be solved by adding freeze instruction.
correctness: https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/x9x4oY
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104569
Summary:
Here we try to avoid issues with "explicit branch" with SimplifyBranchOnICmpChain
which can check on undef. Msan by design reports branches on uninitialized
memory and undefs, so we have false report here.
In general msan does not like when we convert
```
// If at least one of them is true we can MSAN is ok if another is undefs
if (a || b)
return;
```
into
```
// If 'a' is undef MSAN will complain even if 'b' is true
if (a)
return;
if (b)
return;
```
Example
Before optimization we had something like this:
```
while (true) {
bool maybe_undef = doStuff();
while (true) {
char c = getChar();
if (c != 10 && c != 13)
continue
break;
}
// we know that c == 10 || c == 13 if we get here,
// so msan know that branch is not affected by maybe_undef
if (maybe_undef || c == 10 || c == 13)
continue;
return;
}
```
SimplifyBranchOnICmpChain will convert that into
```
while (true) {
bool maybe_undef = doStuff();
while (true) {
char c = getChar();
if (c != 10 && c != 13)
continue;
break;
}
// however msan will complain here:
if (maybe_undef)
continue;
// we know that c == 10 || c == 13, so either way we will get continue
switch(c) {
case 10: continue;
case 13: continue;
}
return;
}
```
Reviewers: eugenis, efriedma
Reviewed By: eugenis, efriedma
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67205
llvm-svn: 371138
hyeongyu kim