The fold for merging a GEP of GEP into a single GEP currently bails
if doing so would result in notional overindexing. The justification
given in the comment above this check is dangerously incorrect: GEPs
with notional overindexing are perfectly fine, and if some code
treats them incorrectly, then that code is broken, not the GEP.
Such a GEP might legally appear in source IR, so only preventing
its creation cannot be sufficient. (The constant folder also ends
up canonicalizing the GEP to remove the notional overindexing, but
that's neither here nor there.)
This check dates back to
bd4fef4a89,
and as far as I can tell the original issue this was trying to
patch around has since been resolved.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116587
The legacy PM is deprecated, so update a bunch of lit tests running
opt to use the new PM syntax when specifying the pipeline.
In this patch focus has been put on test cases for ConstantMerge,
ConstraintElimination, CorrelatedValuePropagation, GlobalDCE,
GlobalOpt, SCCP, TailCallElim and PredicateInfo.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114516
This version includes an small fix allowing function pointers to be
unconditionally replaced for now.
This reverts commit 4c5e4aa89b11ec3253258b8df5125833773d1b1e.
Currently IPSCCP (and others like CVP/GVN) blindly propagate pointer
equalities. In certain cases, that leads to dereferenceable pointers
being replaced, as in the example test case.
I think this is not allowed, as it introduces an access of an
un-dereferenceable pointer. Note that the pointer is inbounds, but one
past the last element, so it is valid, but not dereferenceable.
This patch is mostly to highlight the issue and start a discussion.
Currently it only checks for specifically looking
one-past-the-last-element pointers with array typed bases.
This causes the mis-compile outlined in
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/55754313/is-this-gcc-clang-past-one-pointer-comparison-behavior-conforming-or-non-standar
In the test case, if we replace %p with the GEP for the store, we
subsequently determine that the store and the load cannot alias, because
they are to different underlying objects.
Note that Alive2 seems to think that the replacement is valid:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/2rorhk
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85332
