Skip to content

[DA] Add test cases where base ptr is not loop-invariant #148240

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

kasuga-fj
Copy link
Contributor

@kasuga-fj kasuga-fj commented Jul 11, 2025

Add test cases where DA yields incorrect results because it makes an assumption that the base pointer is loop-invariant, which doesn't hold in these cases.

Will be fixed by #148241.

@llvmbot llvmbot added the llvm:analysis Includes value tracking, cost tables and constant folding label Jul 11, 2025
@llvmbot
Copy link
Member

llvmbot commented Jul 11, 2025

@llvm/pr-subscribers-llvm-analysis

Author: Ryotaro Kasuga (kasuga-fj)

Changes

Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/148240.diff

1 Files Affected:

  • (modified) llvm/test/Analysis/DependenceAnalysis/FlipFlopBaseAddress.ll (+102)
diff --git a/llvm/test/Analysis/DependenceAnalysis/FlipFlopBaseAddress.ll b/llvm/test/Analysis/DependenceAnalysis/FlipFlopBaseAddress.ll
index 7fad0328fdaeb..843c18a6e0d1e 100644
--- a/llvm/test/Analysis/DependenceAnalysis/FlipFlopBaseAddress.ll
+++ b/llvm/test/Analysis/DependenceAnalysis/FlipFlopBaseAddress.ll
@@ -157,3 +157,105 @@ for.inc:                                          ; preds = %cond.end5
 for.end:                                          ; preds = %for.cond.cleanup
   ret void
 }
+
+; Pseudo-code for the following IR:
+;
+; void f(int A[][42]) {
+;   for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++)
+;     for (int j = 0; j < 41; j++)
+;       (j % 2 == 0 ? A[i][j] : A[i][j+1]) = 1;
+; }
+;
+; FIXME: There are loop-carried dependencies between the store instruction. For
+; example, the value of %ptr0 when (i, j) = (0, 1) is %A+8, which is the same
+; as when (i, j) = (0, 2).
+
+define void @non_invariant_baseptr_with_identical_obj(ptr %A) {
+; CHECK-LABEL: 'non_invariant_baseptr_with_identical_obj'
+; CHECK-NEXT:  Src: store i32 1, ptr %idx, align 4 --> Dst: store i32 1, ptr %idx, align 4
+; CHECK-NEXT:    da analyze - none!
+;
+entry:
+  br label %loop.i.header
+
+loop.i.header:
+  %i = phi i32 [ 0, %entry ], [ %i.inc, %loop.i.latch ]
+  %A1 = getelementptr i32, ptr %A, i32 1
+  br label %loop.j
+
+loop.j:
+  %j = phi i32 [ 0, %loop.i.header ], [ %j.inc, %loop.j ]
+  %ptr0 = phi ptr [ %A, %loop.i.header ], [ %ptr1, %loop.j ]
+  %ptr1 = phi ptr [ %A1, %loop.i.header ], [ %ptr0, %loop.j ]
+  %idx = getelementptr [42 x i32], ptr %ptr0, i32 %i, i32 %j
+  store i32 1, ptr %idx
+  %j.inc = add i32 %j, 1
+  %cmp.j = icmp slt i32 %j.inc, 41
+  br i1 %cmp.j, label %loop.j, label %loop.i.latch
+
+loop.i.latch:
+  %i.inc = add i32 %i, 1
+  %cmp.i = icmp slt i32 %i.inc, 100
+  br i1 %cmp.i, label %loop.i.header, label %exit
+
+exit:
+  ret void
+}
+
+; Pseudo-code for the following IR:
+;
+; void f(int A[][42][42]) {
+;   for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++)
+;     for (int j = 0; j < 41; j++) {
+;       int *ptr0 = (j % 2 == 0 ? A[i][j] : A[i][j+1]);
+;       for (int k = 0; k < 42; k++)
+;         ptr0[k] = 1;
+;     }
+; }
+;
+; Similar to the above case, but ptr0 is loop-invariant with respsect to the
+; k-loop.
+;
+; FIXME: Same as the above case, there are loop-carried dependencies between
+; the store.
+
+define void @non_invariant_baseptr_with_identical_underlying_obj2(ptr %A) {
+; CHECK-LABEL: 'non_invariant_baseptr_with_identical_underlying_obj2'
+; CHECK-NEXT:  Src: store i32 1, ptr %idx, align 4 --> Dst: store i32 1, ptr %idx, align 4
+; CHECK-NEXT:    da analyze - none!
+;
+entry:
+  br label %loop.i.header
+
+loop.i.header:
+  %i = phi i32 [ 0, %entry ], [ %i.inc, %loop.i.latch ]
+  %A1 = getelementptr i32, ptr %A, i32 1
+  br label %loop.j.header
+
+loop.j.header:
+  %j = phi i32 [ 0, %loop.i.header ], [ %j.inc, %loop.j.latch ]
+  %ptr0 = phi ptr [ %A, %loop.i.header ], [ %ptr1, %loop.j.latch ]
+  %ptr1 = phi ptr [ %A1, %loop.i.header ], [ %ptr0, %loop.j.latch ]
+  br label %loop.k
+
+loop.k:
+  %k = phi i32 [ 0, %loop.j.header ], [ %k.inc, %loop.k ]
+  %idx = getelementptr [42 x [42 x i32]], ptr %ptr0, i32 %i, i32 %k, i32 %j
+  store i32 1, ptr %idx
+  %k.inc = add i32 %k, 1
+  %cmp.k = icmp slt i32 %k.inc, 42
+  br i1 %cmp.k, label %loop.k, label %loop.j.latch
+
+loop.j.latch:
+  %j.inc = add i32 %j, 1
+  %cmp.j = icmp slt i32 %j.inc, 41
+  br i1 %cmp.j, label %loop.j.header, label %loop.i.latch
+
+loop.i.latch:
+  %i.inc = add i32 %i, 1
+  %cmp.i = icmp slt i32 %i.inc, 100
+  br i1 %cmp.i, label %loop.i.header, label %exit
+
+exit:
+  ret void
+}

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
llvm:analysis Includes value tracking, cost tables and constant folding
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants