Quentin Colombet
2015-Apr-16 23:25 UTC
[LLVMdev] Multiple connected components in live interval
Hi Jonas, Could you file a PR with your test case please? Thanks, -Quentin> On Apr 16, 2015, at 3:50 PM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Apr 16, 2015, at 6:58 AM, Jonas Paulsson <jonas.paulsson at ericsson.com <mailto:jonas.paulsson at ericsson.com>> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I have come across a csmith generated test case that made the MachineVerifier spit out: >> >> *** Bad machine code: Multiple connected components in live interval *** >> >> Having looked at what this might mean, it seems that ConnectedVNInfoEqClasses::Classify() was called on the LI in question by the verifier, and that it returned two equivalence classes, instead of just one, which is demanded by the verifier. Does this mean that there should never be >> any ValNos in a LiveInterval that are not connected? In other words should such an LI never exist, but rather two different LIs? > > That’s right. It looks like a copy was inserted, > >> %vreg3<def> = COPY %vreg46 > > > breaking the live interval, and a new LI was not created. Maybe the splitter did it? You would need to look at debug-only=regalloc. > > Andy > >> >> I have tried to run this on in-tree targets, but unfortunately they did not reproduce the condition. >> I will therefore try to explain: >> >> The options to llc are -optimize-regalloc -O0. The function is meaningless - with -O3 it just returns zero. >> It contains two nested loops, with a call inside the inner loop, which is a CFG-diamond. >> >> The PHI-nodes look like this in the inner loop: >> >> BB#5: // Inner loop header >> Predecessors according to CFG: BB#1 BB#4 >> vreg7<def> = PHI %vreg29, <BB#1>, %vreg4, <BB#4> >> ... >> Successors according to CFG: BB#2 BB#6 >> >> BB#2: >> Predecessors according to CFG: BB#5 >> ... >> Successors according to CFG: BB#3 BB#4 >> >> BB#3: >> Predecessors according to CFG: BB#2 >> call() >> %vreg46<def> = COPY %return_reg >> %vreg3<def> = COPY %vreg46; >> use of %vreg 46 >> >> Successors according to CFG: BB#4 >> >> BB#4: >> Predecessors according to CFG: BB#2 BB#3 >> %vreg4<def> = PHI %vreg7, <BB#2>, %vreg3, <BB#3> >> Successors according to CFG: BB#5 >> >> The observation I made here is that %vreg7 and %vreg4 are sort of nested PHI nodes, while there are no other users of the registers than the PHI nodes themselves. There is however a use of %vreg46, which later gets coalesced with %vreg64, which will include as well the two PHI nodes. >> >> This is the code with the two equivalence classes, when verifier aborts: >> >> 2272B BB#1: derived from LLVM BB %bb3 >> Predecessors according to CFG: BB#8 >> 2304B %vreg64<def> = mov 0 >> 2448B jmp <BB#5> >> Successors according to CFG: BB#5 >> >> 2592B BB#3: derived from LLVM BB %bb6 >> Predecessors according to CFG: BB#2 >> 2704B callr <ga:@safe_div_func_uint64_t_u_u> >> 2736B %vreg64<def> = COPY %return_reg >> 2768B use of %vreg64 >> 2784B use of %vreg64 >> 2816B jmp <BB#4> >> Successors according to CFG: BB#4 >> >> *** Bad machine code: Multiple connected components in live interval *** >> - function: func_61 >> - interval: %vreg64 [2304r,2336r:0)[2736r,2784r:3) 0 at 2304r 1 at x 2 at x 3 at 2736r >> 0: valnos 0 >> 1: valnos 1 2 3 >> LLVM ERROR: Found 1 machine code errors. >> >> Two small live ranges of %vreg64 (originated from %vreg7 and %vreg4), which look ok to me, but the verifier does not like it. >> >> Can anyone give me any background or any hint on what might be the problem here? >> >> thanks, >> >> Jonas Paulsson >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu> http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu <http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev <http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev>-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150416/6e506c0c/attachment.html>
Jonas Paulsson
2015-Apr-17 14:17 UTC
[LLVMdev] Multiple connected components in live interval
Hi,
thanks for answering, but the COPY is there already from after isel. It
is a copy of a subreg, after a a call returning 64 bits.
call <ga:@safe_div_func_uint64_t_u_u>
%vreg45<def> = COPY %r0
%vreg46<def> = COPY %r1
%vreg3<def> = COPY %vreg46
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
ST %vreg46, %vreg0
ST %vreg46, %vreg1
brr_uncond <BB#4>
Does this ring any bell? Could there be any place that misses something
about the resulting LiveInterval due to a phys reg copy?
thanks
/Jonas
PS Quentin, as I said I could not reproduce this error on any in-tree
target.
On 2015-04-17 01:25, Quentin Colombet wrote:> Hi Jonas,
>
> Could you file a PR with your test case please?
>
> Thanks,
> -Quentin
>> On Apr 16, 2015, at 3:50 PM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com
>> <mailto:atrick at apple.com>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 16, 2015, at 6:58 AM, Jonas Paulsson
>>> <jonas.paulsson at ericsson.com <mailto:jonas.paulsson at
ericsson.com>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have come across a csmith generated test case that made the
>>> MachineVerifier spit out:
>>>
>>> *** Bad machine code: Multiple connected components in live
interval ***
>>>
>>> Having looked at what this might mean, it seems that
>>> ConnectedVNInfoEqClasses::Classify() was called on the LI in
>>> question by the verifier, and that it returned two equivalence
>>> classes, instead of just one, which is demanded by the verifier.
>>> Does this mean that there should never be
>>> any ValNos in a LiveInterval that are not connected? In other words
>>> should such an LI never exist, but rather two different LIs?
>>
>> That’s right. It looks like a copy was inserted,
>>
>>> %vreg3<def> = COPY %vreg46
>>
>>
>> breaking the live interval, and a new LI was not created. Maybe the
>> splitter did it? You would need to look at debug-only=regalloc.
>>
>> Andy
>>
>>>
>>> I have tried to run this on in-tree targets, but unfortunately they
>>> did not reproduce the condition.
>>> I will therefore try to explain:
>>>
>>> The options to llc are -optimize-regalloc -O0. The function is
>>> meaningless - with -O3 it just returns zero.
>>> It contains two nested loops, with a call inside the inner loop,
>>> which is a CFG-diamond.
>>>
>>> The PHI-nodes look like this in the inner loop:
>>>
>>> BB#5: // Inner loop header
>>> Predecessors according to CFG: BB#1 BB#4
>>> vreg7<def> = PHI %vreg29, <BB#1>, %vreg4,
<BB#4>
>>> ...
>>> Successors according to CFG: BB#2 BB#6
>>>
>>> BB#2:
>>> Predecessors according to CFG: BB#5
>>> ...
>>> Successors according to CFG: BB#3 BB#4
>>>
>>> BB#3:
>>> Predecessors according to CFG: BB#2
>>> call()
>>> %vreg46<def> = COPY %return_reg
>>> %vreg3<def> = COPY %vreg46;
>>> use of %vreg 46
>>>
>>> Successors according to CFG: BB#4
>>>
>>> BB#4:
>>> Predecessors according to CFG: BB#2 BB#3
>>> %vreg4<def> = PHI %vreg7, <BB#2>, %vreg3,
<BB#3>
>>> Successors according to CFG: BB#5
>>>
>>> The observation I made here is that %vreg7 and %vreg4 are sort of
>>> nested PHI nodes, while there are no other users of the registers
>>> than the PHI nodes themselves. There is however a use of %vreg46,
>>> which later gets coalesced with %vreg64, which will include as well
>>> the two PHI nodes.
>>>
>>> This is the code with the two equivalence classes, when verifier
aborts:
>>>
>>> 2272B BB#1: derived from LLVM BB %bb3
>>> Predecessors according to CFG: BB#8
>>> 2304B %vreg64<def> = mov 0
>>> 2448B jmp <BB#5>
>>> Successors according to CFG: BB#5
>>>
>>> 2592B BB#3: derived from LLVM BB %bb6
>>> Predecessors according to CFG: BB#2
>>> 2704B callr <ga:@safe_div_func_uint64_t_u_u>
>>> 2736B %vreg64<def> = COPY %return_reg
>>> 2768B use of %vreg64
>>> 2784B use of %vreg64
>>> 2816B jmp <BB#4>
>>> Successors according to CFG: BB#4
>>>
>>> *** Bad machine code: Multiple connected components in live
interval ***
>>> - function: func_61
>>> - interval: %vreg64 [2304r,2336r:0)[2736r,2784r:3) 0 at 2304r 1
at x
>>> 2 at x 3 at 2736r
>>> 0: valnos 0
>>> 1: valnos 1 2 3
>>> LLVM ERROR: Found 1 machine code errors.
>>>
>>> Two small live ranges of %vreg64 (originated from %vreg7 and
>>> %vreg4), which look ok to me, but the verifier does not like it.
>>>
>>> Can anyone give me any background or any hint on what might be the
>>> problem here?
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>>
>>> Jonas Paulsson
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu>
http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu
>> <mailto:LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu>http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> <http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/>
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150417/531e02a3/attachment.html>
Quentin Colombet
2015-Apr-17 16:52 UTC
[LLVMdev] Multiple connected components in live interval
Hi Jonas, When is the MachineVerifier complaining? I mean after which pass? Thanks, -Quentin> On Apr 17, 2015, at 7:17 AM, Jonas Paulsson <jonas.paulsson at ericsson.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > thanks for answering, but the COPY is there already from after isel. It is a copy of a subreg, after a a call returning 64 bits. > > call <ga:@safe_div_func_uint64_t_u_u> > %vreg45<def> = COPY %r0 > %vreg46<def> = COPY %r1 > %vreg3<def> = COPY %vreg46 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > ST %vreg46, %vreg0 > ST %vreg46, %vreg1 > brr_uncond <BB#4> > > Does this ring any bell? Could there be any place that misses something about the resulting LiveInterval due to a phys reg copy? > > thanks > > /Jonas > > PS Quentin, as I said I could not reproduce this error on any in-tree target.Ah right.> > > On 2015-04-17 01:25, Quentin Colombet wrote: >> Hi Jonas, >> >> Could you file a PR with your test case please? >> >> Thanks, >> -Quentin >>> On Apr 16, 2015, at 3:50 PM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com <mailto:atrick at apple.com>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Apr 16, 2015, at 6:58 AM, Jonas Paulsson <jonas.paulsson at ericsson.com <mailto:jonas.paulsson at ericsson.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I have come across a csmith generated test case that made the MachineVerifier spit out: >>>> >>>> *** Bad machine code: Multiple connected components in live interval *** >>>> >>>> Having looked at what this might mean, it seems that ConnectedVNInfoEqClasses::Classify() was called on the LI in question by the verifier, and that it returned two equivalence classes, instead of just one, which is demanded by the verifier. Does this mean that there should never be >>>> any ValNos in a LiveInterval that are not connected? In other words should such an LI never exist, but rather two different LIs? >>> >>> That’s right. It looks like a copy was inserted, >>> >>>> %vreg3<def> = COPY %vreg46 >>> >>> >>> breaking the live interval, and a new LI was not created. Maybe the splitter did it? You would need to look at debug-only=regalloc. >>> >>> Andy >>> >>>> >>>> I have tried to run this on in-tree targets, but unfortunately they did not reproduce the condition. >>>> I will therefore try to explain: >>>> >>>> The options to llc are -optimize-regalloc -O0. The function is meaningless - with -O3 it just returns zero. >>>> It contains two nested loops, with a call inside the inner loop, which is a CFG-diamond. >>>> >>>> The PHI-nodes look like this in the inner loop: >>>> >>>> BB#5: // Inner loop header >>>> Predecessors according to CFG: BB#1 BB#4 >>>> vreg7<def> = PHI %vreg29, <BB#1>, %vreg4, <BB#4> >>>> ... >>>> Successors according to CFG: BB#2 BB#6 >>>> >>>> BB#2: >>>> Predecessors according to CFG: BB#5 >>>> ... >>>> Successors according to CFG: BB#3 BB#4 >>>> >>>> BB#3: >>>> Predecessors according to CFG: BB#2 >>>> call() >>>> %vreg46<def> = COPY %return_reg >>>> %vreg3<def> = COPY %vreg46; >>>> use of %vreg 46 >>>> >>>> Successors according to CFG: BB#4 >>>> >>>> BB#4: >>>> Predecessors according to CFG: BB#2 BB#3 >>>> %vreg4<def> = PHI %vreg7, <BB#2>, %vreg3, <BB#3> >>>> Successors according to CFG: BB#5 >>>> >>>> The observation I made here is that %vreg7 and %vreg4 are sort of nested PHI nodes, while there are no other users of the registers than the PHI nodes themselves. There is however a use of %vreg46, which later gets coalesced with %vreg64, which will include as well the two PHI nodes. >>>> >>>> This is the code with the two equivalence classes, when verifier aborts: >>>> >>>> 2272B BB#1: derived from LLVM BB %bb3 >>>> Predecessors according to CFG: BB#8 >>>> 2304B %vreg64<def> = mov 0 >>>> 2448B jmp <BB#5> >>>> Successors according to CFG: BB#5 >>>> >>>> 2592B BB#3: derived from LLVM BB %bb6 >>>> Predecessors according to CFG: BB#2 >>>> 2704B callr <ga:@safe_div_func_uint64_t_u_u> >>>> 2736B %vreg64<def> = COPY %return_reg >>>> 2768B use of %vreg64 >>>> 2784B use of %vreg64 >>>> 2816B jmp <BB#4> >>>> Successors according to CFG: BB#4 >>>> >>>> *** Bad machine code: Multiple connected components in live interval *** >>>> - function: func_61 >>>> - interval: %vreg64 [2304r,2336r:0)[2736r,2784r:3) 0 at 2304r 1 at x 2 at x 3 at 2736r >>>> 0: valnos 0 >>>> 1: valnos 1 2 3 >>>> LLVM ERROR: Found 1 machine code errors. >>>> >>>> Two small live ranges of %vreg64 (originated from %vreg7 and %vreg4), which look ok to me, but the verifier does not like it. >>>> >>>> Can anyone give me any background or any hint on what might be the problem here? >>>> >>>> thanks, >>>> >>>> Jonas Paulsson >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu> http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu <http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/> >>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev <http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu> http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu <http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/> >>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev <http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev> >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150417/4d574e7b/attachment.html>