[LLVMdev] Semantics of an Inbounds GetElementPtr
David Majnemer
david.majnemer at gmail.com
Sun May 3 18:59:30 PDT 2015
On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 9:57 PM, David Majnemer <david.majnemer at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Nicholas White <n.j.white at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi - I've got a question about what optimizations the "inbounds"
>> keyword of "getelementptr" allows you to use. In the code below, %five
>> is loaded from and inbounds offset of either a null pointer or %mem:
>>
>> target datalayout = "e-i64:64-f80:128-n8:16:32:64-S128"
>>
>> define i8 @func(i8* %mem) {
>> %test = icmp eq i8* %mem, null
>> br i1 %test, label %done, label %mem.is.valid
>> mem.is.valid:
>> %1 = getelementptr inbounds i8, i8* %mem, i64 4
>> store i8 5, i8* %1, align 4
>> br label %done
>> done:
>> %after.phi = phi i8* [ %mem, %mem.is.valid ], [ null, %0 ]
>> %2 = getelementptr inbounds i8, i8* %after.phi, i64 4
>> %five = load i8, i8* %2, align 4
>> ret i8 %five
>> }
>>
>> According to the documentation, "the result value of the getelementptr
>> is a poison value if the base pointer is not an in bounds address of
>> an allocated object", so does this mean it's valid to optimise the
>> function to:
>>
>> define i8 @func(i8* %mem) {
>> %test = icmp eq i8* %mem, null
>> br i1 %test, label %done, label %mem.is.valid
>> mem.is.valid:
>> ret i8 5
>> done:
>> ret i8 undef
>> }
>>
>> Or even this:
>>
>> define i8 @func(i8* %mem) {
>> ret i8 5
>> }
>>
>
> No, neither are semantics preserving because there exists no store to
> '%mem'.
>
> Let's start by hoisting both sides of the branch into the entry block.
> This will leave you with:
> define i8 @func(i8* %mem) {
> %test = icmp eq i8* %mem, null
> %after.phi = select i1 %test, i8* null, %mem
> %1 = getelementptr inbounds i8, i8* %mem, i64 4
> store i8 5, i8* %1, align 4
> %2 = getelementptr inbounds i8, i8* %after.phi, i64 4
> %five = load i8, i8* %2, align 4
> ret i8 %five
> }
>
> The SSA value '%after.phi' can be trivially simplified to '%mem', this
> leaves us with:
> define i8 @func(i8* %mem) {
> %1 = getelementptr inbounds i8, i8* %mem, i64 4
> store i8 5, i8* %1, align 4
> %2 = getelementptr inbounds i8, i8* %mem, i64 4
> %five = load i8, i8* %2, align 4
> ret i8 %five
> }
>
> The SSA values '%1' and '%2' are equivalent, this leaves us with:
> define i8 @func(i8* %mem) {
> %1 = getelementptr inbounds i8, i8* %mem, i64 4
> store i8 5, i8* %1, align 4
> ret i8 5
> }
>
> I do not believe further simplification is possible.
>
One final point that I forgot to mention: the transformations that I
performed did not rely on the presence of 'inbounds'.
>
>
>> ...? This is a reduced example of something I saw while running "opt"
>> on a test case that missed a null check. Thanks -
>>
>> Nick
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150503/b7191bd9/attachment.html>
More information about the llvm-dev
mailing list