[llvm-dev] IndVarSimplify: getBackedgeTakenCount and Release vs Assert

[Jeroen Dobbelaere via llvm-dev]

Filed as 'Release and Assert version of IndVarSimplify produce different code':
  https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44815

Greetings,

Jeroen Dobbelaere



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Kruse <llvmdev at meinersbur.de>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 22:03
> To: Jeroen Dobbelaere <dobbel at synopsys.com>
> Cc: Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com>; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] IndVarSimplify: getBackedgeTakenCount and Release vs
> Assert
> 
> This is definitely not expected. `getBackedgeTakenCount` caches some
> intermediate results (e.g. SCEV normalized forms) and its not unheard
> of that these influence other computations. However, the results
> should be the same whether its from the cache of freshly computed. It
> is also possible that some pass does not correctly invalidate a
> result.
> 
> Could you file a bug?
> 
> Michael
> 
> Am Mi., 5. Feb. 2020 um 11:46 Uhr schrieb Jeroen Dobbelaere via
> llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am investigating a difference in code generation between release and
> assert builds of llvm.
> > The culprit is IndVarSimplify that comes up with different behavior on the
> same input:
> >  in the assertion build, it does do an extra 'INDVARS: Rewriting loop exit
> condition'
> >
> > After digging around, it seems that following change is the culprit:
> >
> > -----
> > Author: Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com>  2019-08-01 03:16:08
> > Committer: Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com>  2019-08-01
> 03:16:08
> >
> >     Fix a release-only build warning triggered by rL367485
> >
> >     llvm-svn: 367499
> >
> >
> > [..]
> >
> >
> > +#ifndef NDEBUG
> > +  // Used below for a consistency check only
> >    const SCEV *BackedgeTakenCount = SE->getBackedgeTakenCount(L);
> > +#endif
> > -----
> >
> > It seems that the 'SE->getBackedgeTakenCount(L)' call has sideeffects.. Is that
> to be expected ?
> > Is the correct solution then to always keep the call ?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jeroen Dobbelaere
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.llvm.org_cgi-
> 2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_llvm-
> 2Ddev&d=DwIBaQ&c=DPL6_X_6JkXFx7AXWqB0tg&r=ELyOnT0WepII6UnFk-
> OSzxlGOXXSfAvOLT6E8iPwwJk&m=685UIGd4DIQ-
> _PoCJ7oeBuMOMM27k3CNu8XsQx9Oc_k&s=uW9izoz2iY35y0sFMImKz08cEs-
> eQV98eDwAPySsmcY&e=