similar to: [LLVMdev] Curiosity about transform changes under Sanitizers (Was: [PATCH] Disable branch folding with MemorySanitizer)

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 8:25 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > Just moving this branch of the thread out of the review because I don't > want to derail the review thread... > > Kostya - why are these two cases not optimization bugs in general? (why do > they only affect sanitizers?) > The recent case from mozilla (

The root cause of those issues is the fact that sanitizers verify C++-level semantics with LLVM IR level instrumentation. For example, speculative loads are OK in IR if it can be proved that the load won't trap, but in C++ it would be a data race. On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 8:25 PM, David

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 9:05 PM, Kuperstein, Michael M < michael.m.kuperstein at intel.com> wrote: > My $0.02 - I'm not sure the transformation introduces a data race. > > To the best of my understanding, the point of the C++11/C11 memory model > is to allow a wide array of compiler transformations - including > speculative loads - for non-atomic variables. > I believe

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 8:25 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Just moving this branch of the thread out of the review because I don't >> want to derail the review thread... >> >> Kostya - why are these two cases not optimization bugs in

What I'm trying to say is that according to my understanding of the C++11 memory model, even in that small reproducer, the store to g and the load from g are in fact a data race. (This is regardless of the fact the load is protected by a branch that is not taken.) From: Kostya Serebryany [mailto:kcc at google.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 19:46 To: Kuperstein, Michael M Cc: Evgeniy

My $0.02 - I'm not sure the transformation introduces a data race. To the best of my understanding, the point of the C++11/C11 memory model is to allow a wide array of compiler transformations - including speculative loads - for non-atomic variables. I believe what's most likely happening (without looking at the Mozilla source) is that the original program contains a C++ data race, and

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Kostya Serebryany" <kcc at google.com> > > To: "Michael M Kuperstein" <michael.m.kuperstein at intel.com> > > Cc: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 19,

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kostya Serebryany" <kcc at google.com> > To: "Michael M Kuperstein" <michael.m.kuperstein at intel.com> > Cc: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:45:39 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Curiosity about transform changes under Sanitizers (Was:

----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Blaikie" <dblaikie at gmail.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "Kostya Serebryany" <kcc at google.com>, "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 12:19:46 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Curiosity about transform

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Kuperstein, Michael M < michael.m.kuperstein at intel.com> wrote: > What I’m trying to say is that according to my understanding of the > C++11 memory model, even in that small reproducer, the store to g and the > load from g are in fact a data race. > > (This is regardless of the fact the load is protected by a branch that is > not

On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 3:35 PM Joan Lluch via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi Sanjay, > > Actually, the CodeGenPrepare::optimizeSelectInst is not doing the best it could do in some circumstances: The case of “OptSize" for targets not supporting Select was already mentioned to be detrimental. > > For targets that actually have selects, but branches

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 11:52 AM Joan Lluch <joan.lluch at icloud.com> wrote: > > Hi Roman, > > Is "test" actually an implementation of a 64-bit-wide multiplication > compiler-rt builtin? > Then i'd think the main problem is that it is being optimized in the > first place, you could end up with endless recursion… > > > No, this is not a compiler-rt

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 7:00 AM, Davide Italiano <davide at freebsd.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Johan Engelen via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I just found an optimization regression regarding simple > > dataflow/constprop analysis: > > https://godbolt.org/g/Uz8P7t > > > > This code >

Changing the order of the checks in CodeGenPrepare::optimizeSelectInst() sounds good to me. But you may need to go further for optimum performance. For example, we may be canonicalizing math/logic IR patterns into 'select' such as in the recent: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67799 So if you want those to become ALU ops again rather than branches, then you need to do the transform later in

For the MSP430 example, I'm guess its InstCombiner::transformSExtICmp or InstCombiner::transformZExtICmp ~Craig On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 2:21 PM Support IMAP <support at sweetwilliamsl.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Ok, I just found a much simpler example of the same issue. > > Consider the following code > > int cmpge32_0(long a) { > return a>=0; > } >

Hi Sanjay, Thanks for your reply. > So yes, the IR optimizer (instcombine is the specific pass) sometimes turns icmp (and select) sequences into ALU ops. Instcombine is almost entirely *target-independent* and should remain that way. The (sometimes unfortunate) decision to create shifts were made based on popular targets of the time (PowerPC and/or x86), and other targets may have suffered

Today I ran into another aspect of the poison problem... Basically, SimplifyCFG wants to take expr1 && expr2 and flatten it into x = expr1 y = expr2 x&y This isn't safe when expr2 might execute UB. The consequence is that no LLVM shift instruction is safe to speculatively execute, nor is any nsw/nuw/exact variant, unless the operands can be proven to be in

Hello all, I just noticed that LLVM has trouble recognizing nested simple select operations. My testcase is as follows: -------------------------- snip ------------------------------ #include <stdio.h> int main(int argc, char **argv) { int a; scanf("%d", &a); a = a > 255 ? 255 : a < 0 ? 0 : a; printf("A: %d\n", a); return 0; }

The LRM (http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#llvm-lifetime-start-intrinsic) essentially states that: - ptr is dead before a call to "lifetime.start size, ptr" - ptr is dead after a call to "lifetime.end size, ptr" This is all good and fine, and the expected use case is that all "lifetime.end size, ptr" markers are matched with a preceding "lifetime.start

Hi, InstCombine canonicalizes index operands (unless they are into struct types) to pointer size. The comment says: "If we are using a wider index than needed for this platform, shrink it to what we need. If narrower, sign-extend it to what we need. This explicit cast can make subsequent optimizations more obvious.". For our architecture, the canonicalization is a bit