[DA] Add test where ExactSIV misses dependency due to overflow (NFC)#157085
Merged
[DA] Add test where ExactSIV misses dependency due to overflow (NFC)#157085
Conversation
Contributor
Author
This was referenced Sep 5, 2025
Member
|
@llvm/pr-subscribers-llvm-analysis Author: Ryotaro Kasuga (kasuga-fj) ChangesThis patch adds test cases where DA fails to detect dependencies due to overflow during analysis. For now, they are added to Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/157085.diff 1 Files Affected:
diff --git a/llvm/test/Analysis/DependenceAnalysis/ExactSIV.ll b/llvm/test/Analysis/DependenceAnalysis/ExactSIV.ll
index 0fe62991fede9..97b58c06303e6 100644
--- a/llvm/test/Analysis/DependenceAnalysis/ExactSIV.ll
+++ b/llvm/test/Analysis/DependenceAnalysis/ExactSIV.ll
@@ -807,3 +807,116 @@ for.body: ; preds = %entry, %for.body
for.end: ; preds = %for.body
ret void
}
+
+;; FIXME: There is a loop-carried dependency between
+;; `A[-6*i + INT64_MAX]` and `A[3*i - 2]`. For example,
+;;
+;; - 1 = -6*max_i + INT64_MAX = 3*1 - 2
+;; - 4611686018427387901 = -6*768614336404564651 + INT64_MAX = 3*max_i - 2
+;;
+;; max_i = INT64_MAX/6 // 1537228672809129301
+;; for (long long i = 0; i <= max_i; i++) {
+;; A[-6*i + INT64_MAX] = 0;
+;; if (i)
+;; A[3*i - 2] = 1;
+;; }
+
+define void @exact14(ptr %A) {
+; CHECK-LABEL: 'exact14'
+; CHECK-NEXT: Src: store i8 0, ptr %idx.0, align 1 --> Dst: store i8 0, ptr %idx.0, align 1
+; CHECK-NEXT: da analyze - none!
+; CHECK-NEXT: Src: store i8 0, ptr %idx.0, align 1 --> Dst: store i8 1, ptr %idx.1, align 1
+; CHECK-NEXT: da analyze - none!
+; CHECK-NEXT: Src: store i8 1, ptr %idx.1, align 1 --> Dst: store i8 1, ptr %idx.1, align 1
+; CHECK-NEXT: da analyze - none!
+;
+; CHECK-SIV-ONLY-LABEL: 'exact14'
+; CHECK-SIV-ONLY-NEXT: Src: store i8 0, ptr %idx.0, align 1 --> Dst: store i8 0, ptr %idx.0, align 1
+; CHECK-SIV-ONLY-NEXT: da analyze - none!
+; CHECK-SIV-ONLY-NEXT: Src: store i8 0, ptr %idx.0, align 1 --> Dst: store i8 1, ptr %idx.1, align 1
+; CHECK-SIV-ONLY-NEXT: da analyze - none!
+; CHECK-SIV-ONLY-NEXT: Src: store i8 1, ptr %idx.1, align 1 --> Dst: store i8 1, ptr %idx.1, align 1
+; CHECK-SIV-ONLY-NEXT: da analyze - none!
+;
+entry:
+ br label %loop.header
+
+loop.header:
+ %i = phi i64 [ 0, %entry ], [ %i.inc, %loop.latch ]
+ %subscript.0 = phi i64 [ 9223372036854775807, %entry ], [ %subscript.0.next, %loop.latch ]
+ %subscript.1 = phi i64 [ -2, %entry ], [ %subscript.1.next, %loop.latch ]
+ %idx.0 = getelementptr inbounds i8, ptr %A, i64 %subscript.0
+ store i8 0, ptr %idx.0
+ %cond.store = icmp ne i64 %i, 0
+ br i1 %cond.store, label %if.store, label %loop.latch
+
+if.store:
+ %idx.1 = getelementptr inbounds i8, ptr %A, i64 %subscript.1
+ store i8 1, ptr %idx.1
+ br label %loop.latch
+
+loop.latch:
+ %i.inc = add nuw nsw i64 %i, 1
+ %subscript.0.next = add nuw nsw i64 %subscript.0, -6
+ %subscript.1.next = add nuw nsw i64 %subscript.1, 3
+ %exitcond = icmp sgt i64 %i.inc, 1537228672809129301
+ br i1 %exitcond, label %exit, label %loop.header
+
+exit:
+ ret void
+}
+
+;; A generalized version of @exact14.
+;;
+;; for (long long i = 0; i <= n / 6; i++) {
+;; A[-6*i + n] = 0;
+;; if (i)
+;; A[3*i - 2] = 1;
+;; }
+
+define void @exact15(ptr %A, i64 %n) {
+; CHECK-LABEL: 'exact15'
+; CHECK-NEXT: Src: store i8 0, ptr %idx.0, align 1 --> Dst: store i8 0, ptr %idx.0, align 1
+; CHECK-NEXT: da analyze - none!
+; CHECK-NEXT: Src: store i8 0, ptr %idx.0, align 1 --> Dst: store i8 1, ptr %idx.1, align 1
+; CHECK-NEXT: da analyze - output [*|<]!
+; CHECK-NEXT: Src: store i8 1, ptr %idx.1, align 1 --> Dst: store i8 1, ptr %idx.1, align 1
+; CHECK-NEXT: da analyze - none!
+;
+; CHECK-SIV-ONLY-LABEL: 'exact15'
+; CHECK-SIV-ONLY-NEXT: Src: store i8 0, ptr %idx.0, align 1 --> Dst: store i8 0, ptr %idx.0, align 1
+; CHECK-SIV-ONLY-NEXT: da analyze - none!
+; CHECK-SIV-ONLY-NEXT: Src: store i8 0, ptr %idx.0, align 1 --> Dst: store i8 1, ptr %idx.1, align 1
+; CHECK-SIV-ONLY-NEXT: da analyze - output [*|<]!
+; CHECK-SIV-ONLY-NEXT: Src: store i8 1, ptr %idx.1, align 1 --> Dst: store i8 1, ptr %idx.1, align 1
+; CHECK-SIV-ONLY-NEXT: da analyze - none!
+;
+entry:
+ %bound = sdiv i64 %n, 6
+ %guard = icmp sgt i64 %n, 0
+ br i1 %guard, label %loop.header, label %exit
+
+loop.header:
+ %i = phi i64 [ 0, %entry ], [ %i.inc, %loop.latch ]
+ %subscript.0 = phi i64 [ %n, %entry ], [ %subscript.0.next, %loop.latch ]
+ %subscript.1 = phi i64 [ -2, %entry ], [ %subscript.1.next, %loop.latch ]
+ %idx.0 = getelementptr inbounds i8, ptr %A, i64 %subscript.0
+ store i8 0, ptr %idx.0
+ %cond.store = icmp ne i64 %i, 0
+ br i1 %cond.store, label %if.store, label %loop.latch
+
+if.store:
+ %idx.1 = getelementptr inbounds i8, ptr %A, i64 %subscript.1
+ store i8 1, ptr %idx.1
+ br label %loop.latch
+
+loop.latch:
+ %i.inc = add nuw nsw i64 %i, 1
+ %subscript.0.next = add nuw nsw i64 %subscript.0, -6
+ %subscript.1.next = add nuw nsw i64 %subscript.1, 3
+ %exitcond = icmp sgt i64 %i.inc, %bound
+ br i1 %exitcond, label %exit, label %loop.header
+
+exit:
+ ret void
+}
|
5aec6d1 to
9d8c452
Compare
153b37c to
43aa6e2
Compare
8377460 to
059708d
Compare
059708d to
6a3a5fc
Compare
43aa6e2 to
fb2bcf2
Compare
Meinersbur
approved these changes
Sep 16, 2025
kasuga-fj
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 16, 2025
This patch introduces a new option, `da-run-siv-routines-only`, which runs only the SIV family routines in the DA. This is useful for testing (regression tests, not dependence tests) as it helps detect behavioral changes in the SIV routines. Actually, regarding the test cases added in #157085, fixing the incorrect result requires changes across multiple functions (at a minimum, `exactSIVtest`, `gcdMIVtest` and `symbolicRDIVtest`). It is difficult to address all of them at once. This patch also generates the CHECK directives using the new option for `ExactSIV.ll` as it is necessary for subsequent patches. However, I believe it will also be useful for other `xxSIV.ll` tests. Notably, the SIV family routines tend to be affected by other routines, as they are typically invoked at the beginning of the overall analysis.
Base automatically changed from
users/kasuga-fj/da-fix-exact-siv-ovfl-1
to
main
September 16, 2025 18:48
Contributor
Author
|
Thanks for the review! |
kasuga-fj
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 19, 2025
This patch adds an overflow check to the `exactSIVtest` function to fix the issue demonstrated in the test case added in #157085. This patch only fixes one of the routines. To fully resolve the test case, the other functions need to be addressed as well.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This patch adds test cases where DA fails to detect dependencies due to overflow during analysis. For now, they are added to
ExactSIV.ll, butsymbolicRDIVtestandgcdMIVtestalso exhibit similar issues and will need to be fixed as well.