[PATCH] D139993: [LoopFusion] Sorting of undominated FusionCandidates crashes

[Ramkrishnan Narayanan Komala via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

ram-NK updated this revision to Diff 483263.
ram-NK added a comment.

format issue fixed.


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D139993/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D139993

Files:
  llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopFuse.cpp
  llvm/test/Transforms/LoopFusion/undominated_loops.ll


Index: llvm/test/Transforms/LoopFusion/undominated_loops.ll
===================================================================
--- /dev/null
+++ llvm/test/Transforms/LoopFusion/undominated_loops.ll
@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+; RUN: opt -S -passes=loop-fusion -debug-only=loop-fusion -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+
+define void @test_long_1() {
+; CHECK: Performing Loop Fusion on function test_long_1
+; CHECK: Fusion Candidates:
+; CHECK: *** Fusion Candidate Set ***
+; CHECK: entry.vector.body_crit_edge
+; CHECK: for.cond.cleanup5.vector.body23_crit_edge
+; CHECK: ****************************
+; CHECK: Loop Fusion complete
+entry:
+  br i1 true, label %for.body6.preheader, label %entry.vector.body_crit_edge
+
+entry.vector.body_crit_edge:                      ; preds = %entry
+  br label %vector.body
+
+vector.body:                                      ; preds = %entry.vector.body_crit_edge, %vector.body
+  br i1 true, label %vector.body.for.cond.cleanup5_crit_edge, label %vector.body
+
+vector.body.for.cond.cleanup5_crit_edge:          ; preds = %vector.body
+  br label %for.cond.cleanup5
+
+for.body6.preheader:                              ; preds = %entry
+  br label %for.cond.cleanup5
+
+for.cond.cleanup5:                                ; preds = %vector.body.for.cond.cleanup5_crit_edge, %for.body6.preheader
+  br i1 true, label %for.body17.preheader, label %for.cond.cleanup5.vector.body23_crit_edge
+
+for.cond.cleanup5.vector.body23_crit_edge:        ; preds = %for.cond.cleanup5
+  br label %vector.body23
+
+vector.body23:                                    ; preds = %for.cond.cleanup5.vector.body23_crit_edge, %vector.body23
+  br i1 true, label %middle.block15, label %vector.body23
+
+middle.block15:                                   ; preds = %vector.body23
+  unreachable
+
+for.body17.preheader:                             ; preds = %for.cond.cleanup5
+  unreachable
+
+; uselistorder directives
+  uselistorder label %vector.body, { 1, 0 }
+  uselistorder label %for.cond.cleanup5, { 1, 0 }
+  uselistorder label %vector.body23, { 1, 0 }
+}
Index: llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopFuse.cpp
===================================================================
--- llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopFuse.cpp
+++ llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopFuse.cpp
@@ -415,9 +415,29 @@
       return true;
     }
 
-    // If LHS does not dominate RHS and RHS does not dominate LHS then there is
-    // no dominance relationship between the two FusionCandidates. Thus, they
-    // should not be in the same set together.
+    // If two FusionCandidates are in the same level of dominator tree,
+    // they will not dominate each other, but may still be control flow
+    // equivalent. To sort those FusionCandidates, nonStrictlyPostDominate()
+    // function is needed.
+    bool wrongOrder =
+        nonStrictlyPostDominate(LHSEntryBlock, RHSEntryBlock, DT, LHS.PDT);
+    bool rightOrder =
+        nonStrictlyPostDominate(RHSEntryBlock, LHSEntryBlock, DT, LHS.PDT);
+    if (wrongOrder && rightOrder) {
+      // If common predecessor of LHS and RHS post dominates both
+      // FusionCandidates then, Order of FusionCandidate can be
+      // identified by its level in post dominator tree.
+      DomTreeNode *LNode = LHS.PDT->getNode(LHSEntryBlock);
+      DomTreeNode *RNode = LHS.PDT->getNode(RHSEntryBlock);
+      return (LNode->getLevel() > RNode->getLevel());
+    } else if (wrongOrder)
+      return false;
+    else if (rightOrder)
+      return true;
+
+    // If LHS does not non-strict Postdominate RHS and RHS does not non-strict
+    // Postdominate LHS then, there is no dominance relationship between the
+    // two FusionCandidates. Thus, they should not be in the same set together.
     llvm_unreachable(
         "No dominance relationship between these fusion candidates!");
   }


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: D139993.483263.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 3837 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20221215/0d2a4c4f/attachment-0001.bin>