[llvm] [DependenceAnalysis] Fix SIV test crash when no AddRec after propagation (PR #154980)
Sebastian Pop via llvm-commits
llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
Fri Aug 22 11:24:30 PDT 2025
https://github.com/sebpop updated https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/154980
>From 6c358c66ea2712391f5fb87f079bd7da33bc9e28 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Sebastian Pop <spop at nvidia.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2025 14:39:49 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] [DependenceAnalysis] Fix SIV test crash when no AddRec after
propagation
Fixes GitHub issue #148435 where testSIV() would hit an assertion failure
when neither Src nor Dst expressions contain AddRec after constraint
propagation. This can occur when propagation simplifies expressions to
non-AddRec forms. The subscript is effectively a zero induction variable.
The fix falls back to ZIV analysis in this case, treating the simplified
expressions as loop-invariant, which is the correct behavior when all
induction variable references have been eliminated through propagation.
The patch also fixes a MIV case that may decay into a ZIV test.
Add missing NonLinear case to switch statements in propagation code
to prevent 'bad subscript classification' crash when subscripts are
reclassified as NonLinear after constraint propagation.
Add regression test to prevent future occurrences of this issue.
---
llvm/lib/Analysis/DependenceAnalysis.cpp | 61 +++++++++---
.../Analysis/DependenceAnalysis/PR148435.ll | 95 +++++++++++++++++++
.../DependenceAnalysis/bounds-check.ll | 29 ++++++
3 files changed, 170 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 llvm/test/Analysis/DependenceAnalysis/PR148435.ll
create mode 100644 llvm/test/Analysis/DependenceAnalysis/bounds-check.ll
diff --git a/llvm/lib/Analysis/DependenceAnalysis.cpp b/llvm/lib/Analysis/DependenceAnalysis.cpp
index f33e04e804e3d..c6c2bc9b4ba25 100644
--- a/llvm/lib/Analysis/DependenceAnalysis.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/Analysis/DependenceAnalysis.cpp
@@ -873,6 +873,9 @@ void DependenceInfo::collectCommonLoops(const SCEV *Expression,
SmallBitVector &Loops) const {
while (LoopNest) {
unsigned Level = LoopNest->getLoopDepth();
+ LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "MaxLevels = " << MaxLevels << "\n");
+ LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "Level = " << Level << "\n");
+ assert(Level <= MaxLevels && "Level larger than MaxLevels.");
if (Level <= CommonLevels && !SE->isLoopInvariant(Expression, LoopNest))
Loops.set(Level);
LoopNest = LoopNest->getParentLoop();
@@ -959,6 +962,10 @@ bool DependenceInfo::checkSubscript(const SCEV *Expr, const Loop *LoopNest,
if (!AddRec)
return isLoopInvariant(Expr, LoopNest);
+ const SCEV *Step = AddRec->getStepRecurrence(*SE);
+ if (!isLoopInvariant(Step, LoopNest))
+ return false;
+
// The AddRec must depend on one of the containing loops. Otherwise,
// mapSrcLoop and mapDstLoop return indices outside the intended range. This
// can happen when a subscript in one loop references an IV from a sibling
@@ -970,14 +977,16 @@ bool DependenceInfo::checkSubscript(const SCEV *Expr, const Loop *LoopNest,
if (!L)
return false;
+ unsigned Level = IsSrc ? mapSrcLoop(L) : mapDstLoop(L);
+ // Check that the mapped loop index is within bounds for the SmallBitVector.
+ // This can happen when loop depths exceed MaxLevels due to the mapping
+ // algorithm.
+
+ LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "MaxLevels = " << MaxLevels << "\n");
+ LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "Level = " << Level << "\n");
+ assert(Level <= MaxLevels && "Level larger than MaxLevels.");
+ Loops.set(Level);
const SCEV *Start = AddRec->getStart();
- const SCEV *Step = AddRec->getStepRecurrence(*SE);
- if (!isLoopInvariant(Step, LoopNest))
- return false;
- if (IsSrc)
- Loops.set(mapSrcLoop(AddRec->getLoop()));
- else
- Loops.set(mapDstLoop(AddRec->getLoop()));
return checkSubscript(Start, LoopNest, Loops, IsSrc);
}
@@ -2281,8 +2290,14 @@ bool DependenceInfo::testSIV(const SCEV *Src, const SCEV *Dst, unsigned &Level,
Result, NewConstraint) ||
gcdMIVtest(Src, Dst, Result);
}
- llvm_unreachable("SIV test expected at least one AddRec");
- return false;
+ // If neither expression is an AddRec, this means propagation has simplified
+ // them to non-AddRec forms. In this case, fall back to ZIV analysis since
+ // the expressions are effectively loop-invariant.
+ LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << " falling back to ZIV test due to no AddRec\n");
+ // Set to first valid level to avoid Level=0 causing DV[-1] access.
+ // See comment in establishNestingLevels.
+ Level = 1;
+ return testZIV(Src, Dst, Result);
}
// testRDIV -
@@ -2343,8 +2358,14 @@ bool DependenceInfo::testRDIV(const SCEV *Src, const SCEV *Dst,
SrcLoop = DstAddRec->getLoop();
} else
llvm_unreachable("RDIV reached by surprising SCEVs");
- } else
- llvm_unreachable("RDIV expected at least one AddRec");
+ } else {
+ // If neither expression is an AddRec, this means propagation has simplified
+ // them to non-AddRec forms. Fall back to ZIV analysis since the expressions
+ // are effectively loop-invariant.
+ LLVM_DEBUG(
+ dbgs() << " RDIV falling back to ZIV test due to no AddRec\n");
+ return testZIV(Src, Dst, Result);
+ }
return exactRDIVtest(SrcCoeff, DstCoeff, SrcConst, DstConst, SrcLoop, DstLoop,
Result) ||
gcdMIVtest(Src, Dst, Result) ||
@@ -3821,7 +3842,7 @@ DependenceInfo::depends(Instruction *Src, Instruction *Dst,
break;
case Subscript::SIV: {
LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << ", SIV\n");
- unsigned Level;
+ unsigned Level = 0;
const SCEV *SplitIter = nullptr;
if (testSIV(Pair[SI].Src, Pair[SI].Dst, Level, Result, NewConstraint,
SplitIter))
@@ -3872,12 +3893,17 @@ DependenceInfo::depends(Instruction *Src, Instruction *Dst,
for (unsigned SJ : Sivs.set_bits()) {
LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "testing subscript " << SJ << ", SIV\n");
// SJ is an SIV subscript that's part of the current coupled group
- unsigned Level;
+ unsigned Level = 0;
const SCEV *SplitIter = nullptr;
LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "SIV\n");
if (testSIV(Pair[SJ].Src, Pair[SJ].Dst, Level, Result, NewConstraint,
SplitIter))
return nullptr;
+
+ LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "MaxLevels = " << MaxLevels << "\n");
+ LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "Level = " << Level << "\n");
+ assert(Level <= MaxLevels && "Level larger than MaxLevels.");
+
ConstrainedLevels.set(Level);
if (intersectConstraints(&Constraints[Level], &NewConstraint)) {
if (Constraints[Level].isEmpty()) {
@@ -4155,7 +4181,7 @@ const SCEV *DependenceInfo::getSplitIteration(const Dependence &Dep,
for (unsigned SI : Separable.set_bits()) {
switch (Pair[SI].Classification) {
case Subscript::SIV: {
- unsigned Level;
+ unsigned Level = 0;
const SCEV *SplitIter = nullptr;
(void)testSIV(Pair[SI].Src, Pair[SI].Dst, Level, Result, NewConstraint,
SplitIter);
@@ -4195,12 +4221,17 @@ const SCEV *DependenceInfo::getSplitIteration(const Dependence &Dep,
bool Changed = false;
for (unsigned SJ : Sivs.set_bits()) {
// SJ is an SIV subscript that's part of the current coupled group
- unsigned Level;
+ unsigned Level = 0;
const SCEV *SplitIter = nullptr;
(void)testSIV(Pair[SJ].Src, Pair[SJ].Dst, Level, Result, NewConstraint,
SplitIter);
if (Level == SplitLevel && SplitIter)
return SplitIter;
+
+ LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "MaxLevels = " << MaxLevels << "\n");
+ LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "Level = " << Level << "\n");
+ assert(Level <= MaxLevels && "Level larger than MaxLevels.");
+
ConstrainedLevels.set(Level);
if (intersectConstraints(&Constraints[Level], &NewConstraint))
Changed = true;
diff --git a/llvm/test/Analysis/DependenceAnalysis/PR148435.ll b/llvm/test/Analysis/DependenceAnalysis/PR148435.ll
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000..1633a91336f68
--- /dev/null
+++ b/llvm/test/Analysis/DependenceAnalysis/PR148435.ll
@@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
+; NOTE: Assertions have been autogenerated by utils/update_analyze_test_checks.py UTC_ARGS: --version 5
+; RUN: opt < %s -disable-output "-passes=print<da>" 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+
+; Test case for bug #148435 - SIV test assertion failure.
+; This test ensures that testSIV handles the case where neither Src nor Dst
+; expressions contain AddRec after propagation, which can happen when
+; constraints simplify the expressions to non-AddRec forms.
+
+target datalayout = "e-m:e-p270:32:32-p271:32:32-p272:64:64-i8:8:32-i16:16:32-i64:64-i128:128-n32:64-S128-Fn32"
+target triple = "aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu"
+
+define void @_Z1cb(ptr %a) {
+; CHECK-LABEL: '_Z1cb'
+; CHECK-NEXT: Src: store i8 0, ptr %arrayidx9, align 1 --> Dst: store i8 0, ptr %arrayidx9, align 1
+; CHECK-NEXT: da analyze - output [*]!
+;
+entry:
+ br label %for.body
+
+for.cond.cleanup.loopexit: ; preds = %for.body
+ ret void
+
+for.body: ; preds = %for.body, %entry
+ %indvars.iv23 = phi i64 [ 0, %entry ], [ %indvars.iv.next24, %for.body ]
+ %idxprom = and i64 %indvars.iv23, 1
+ %arrayidx9 = getelementptr inbounds [0 x [12 x [12 x i8]]], ptr %a, i64 0, i64 %idxprom, i64 0, i64 %indvars.iv23
+ store i8 0, ptr %arrayidx9, align 1
+ %indvars.iv.next24 = add i64 %indvars.iv23, 1
+ %exitcond.not = icmp eq i64 %indvars.iv.next24, 0
+ br i1 %exitcond.not, label %for.cond.cleanup.loopexit, label %for.body
+}
+
+ at a = external global [0 x [12 x [12 x i8]]], align 1
+
+define void @test_siv_no_addrec(i1 %d, i32 %b) {
+; CHECK-LABEL: 'test_siv_no_addrec'
+; CHECK-NEXT: Src: store i8 0, ptr %arrayidx7, align 1 --> Dst: store i8 0, ptr %arrayidx7, align 1
+; CHECK-NEXT: da analyze - output [* *]!
+;
+entry:
+ %conv.val = select i1 %d, i16 1, i16 0
+ br label %for.cond
+
+for.cond: ; preds = %for.inc8, %entry
+ %e.0 = phi i32 [ %b, %entry ], [ %inc9, %for.inc8 ]
+ %cmp = icmp ult i32 %e.0, 10
+ br i1 %cmp, label %for.cond1, label %for.end10
+
+for.cond1: ; preds = %for.inc, %for.cond
+ %f.0 = phi i16 [ %conv.val, %for.cond ], [ %add, %for.inc ]
+ %cmp2 = icmp slt i16 %f.0, 10
+ br i1 %cmp2, label %for.body4, label %for.inc8
+
+for.body4: ; preds = %for.cond1
+ %sub = add i32 %e.0, -3
+ %idxprom = zext i32 %sub to i64
+ %idxprom5 = sext i16 %f.0 to i64
+ %idxprom6 = zext i32 %e.0 to i64
+ %arrayidx7 = getelementptr inbounds [0 x [12 x [12 x i8]]], ptr @a, i64 0, i64 %idxprom, i64 %idxprom5, i64 %idxprom6
+ store i8 0, ptr %arrayidx7, align 1
+ br label %for.inc
+
+for.inc: ; preds = %for.body4
+ %add = add i16 %f.0, 2
+ br label %for.cond1
+
+for.inc8: ; preds = %for.cond1
+ %inc9 = add i32 %e.0, 1
+ br label %for.cond
+
+for.end10: ; preds = %for.cond
+ ret void
+}
+
+define void @f1(ptr %a) {
+; CHECK-LABEL: 'f1'
+; CHECK-NEXT: Src: store i8 0, ptr %idx, align 1 --> Dst: store i8 0, ptr %idx, align 1
+; CHECK-NEXT: da analyze - none!
+; Note: the second patch for PR148435 modifies the above CHECK to correct "output [*]".
+;
+entry:
+ br label %loop
+
+loop:
+ %i = phi i64 [ 0, %entry ], [ %i.next, %loop ]
+ %and = and i64 %i, 1
+ %idx = getelementptr inbounds [4 x [4 x i8]], ptr %a, i64 0, i64 %and, i64 %and
+ store i8 0, ptr %idx
+ %i.next = add i64 %i, 1
+ %exitcond.not = icmp slt i64 %i.next, 8
+ br i1 %exitcond.not, label %loop, label %exit
+
+exit:
+ ret void
+}
diff --git a/llvm/test/Analysis/DependenceAnalysis/bounds-check.ll b/llvm/test/Analysis/DependenceAnalysis/bounds-check.ll
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000..dca86e5e55643
--- /dev/null
+++ b/llvm/test/Analysis/DependenceAnalysis/bounds-check.ll
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+; NOTE: Assertions have been autogenerated by utils/update_analyze_test_checks.py UTC_ARGS: --version 5
+; RUN: opt < %s -disable-output "-passes=print<da>" 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+
+; Test case for SmallBitVector bounds checking bug in DependenceAnalysis.
+; This test ensures that loop index mapping functions don't cause out-of-bounds
+; access to SmallBitVector when loop depths exceed MaxLevels.
+
+target datalayout = "e-m:e-i8:8:32-i16:16:32-i64:64-i128:128-n32:64-S128"
+
+define void @bounds_check_test(ptr %a) {
+; CHECK-LABEL: 'bounds_check_test'
+; CHECK-NEXT: Src: store i8 0, ptr %idx, align 1 --> Dst: store i8 0, ptr %idx, align 1
+; CHECK-NEXT: da analyze - none!
+;
+entry:
+ br label %loop
+
+loop:
+ %i = phi i64 [ 0, %entry ], [ %i.next, %loop ]
+ %and = and i64 %i, 1 ; Creates index 0 or 1
+ %idx = getelementptr inbounds [4 x [4 x i8]], ptr %a, i64 0, i64 %and, i64 %i
+ store i8 0, ptr %idx
+ %i.next = add i64 %i, 1
+ %exitcond.not = icmp slt i64 %i.next, 4
+ br i1 %exitcond.not, label %loop, label %exit
+
+exit:
+ ret void
+}
More information about the llvm-commits
mailing list