[llvm-dev] Hitting assertion failure related to vectorization + instcombine

Mon Jul 25 11:07:55 PDT 2016

Sure. David, what do you think about merging this to 3.9?

Sanjay: are you saying I'd just apply that diff to
InstructionSimplify.cpp, not InstCombineSelect.cpp?

On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> wrote:
> Hi Hans -
>
> Yes, I think this is a good patch for 3.9 (cc'ing David Majnemer as code
> owner). The functional change was r276209. I made an NFC refactoring in
> InstSimplify at r275911 that isn't in the branch, so I don't think the patch
> will apply as-is. For safety, you could apply the one-line fix without
> pulling the refactoring into the branch with this diff:
>
> -    unsigned BitWidth = Q.DL.getTypeSizeInBits(TrueVal->getType());
> +    unsigned BitWidth =
> +        Q.DL.getTypeSizeInBits(TrueVal->getType()->getScalarType());
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 7:45 AM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote:
>>
>> Sanjay: let me know if this is something that will apply to 3.9.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Hans
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 5:59 PM, Sanjay Patel via llvm-dev
>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> > Quick update - the bug existed before I refactored that chunk in
>> > InstSimplify with:
>> > https://reviews.llvm.org/rL275911
>> >
>> > In fact, as discussed in https://reviews.llvm.org/D22537 - because we
>> > have a
>> > big pile of lazily copied code, the bug has an identical twin that
>> > exists in
>> > InstCombine. I swear I didn't touch that code...yet. :)
>> >
>> > define <2 x i32> @select_icmp_vec(<2 x i32> %x) {
>> >   %cmp = icmp slt <2 x i32> %x, zeroinitializer
>> >   %xor = xor <2 x i32> %x, <i32 2147483648, i32 2147483648>
>> >   %x.xor = select <2 x i1> %cmp, <2 x i32> %x, <2 x i32> %xor
>> >   ret <2 x i32> %x.xor
>> > }
>> >
>> > $ ./opt -instcombine selvec.ll -S
>> > Assertion failed: (BitWidth == RHS.BitWidth && "Comparison requires
>> > equal
>> > bit widths"), function operator==, file
>> > /Users/spatel/myllvm/llvm/include/llvm/ADT/APInt.h, line 983.
>> >
>> > I should have a patch up for review shortly.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for notifying me. Yes, this was a recent change. Taking a look
>> >> now.
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Michael Kuperstein <mkuper at google.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> +Sanjay, who touched this last. :-)
>> >>>
>> >>> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Ismail Badawi (ibadawi) via llvm-dev
>> >>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hi folks,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I'm hitting the below assertion failure when compiling this small
>> >>>> piece
>> >>>> of C code (repro.c, attached).
>> >>>>
>> >>>> My command line is:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> bin/clang --target=aarch64-linux-gnu -c -O2 repro.c
>> >>>>
>> >>>> clang is built from top of trunk as of this morning. It only happens
>> >>>> at
>> >>>> -O2, and it doesn't happen with the default target (x86_64). I tried
>> >>>> to
>> >>>> reproduce using just 'llc -O2' but didn't manage -- but I do have
>> >>>> this
>> >>>> reduced opt command line (repro.ll also attached, just generated from
>> >>>> repro.c at -O0):
>> >>>>
>> >>>> bin/opt -instcombine -licm -simplifycfg -instcombine -loop-rotate
>> >>>> -loop-vectorize -instcombine < repro.ll
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The failure is:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> opt: /scratch/1/ismail/llvm-upstream/include/llvm/ADT/APInt.h:983:
>> >>>> bool
>> >>>> llvm::APInt::operator==(const llvm::APInt&) const: Assertion
>> >>>> `BitWidth ==
>> >>>> RHS.BitWidth && "Comparison requires equal bit widths"' failed.
>> >>>> ...snip...
>> >>>> #8 0x00000000013a8553 llvm::APInt::operator==(llvm::APInt const&)
>> >>>> const
>> >>>> /scratch/1/ismail/llvm-upstream/include/llvm/ADT/APInt.h:984:0
>> >>>> #9 0x0000000001f875b0 simplifySelectBitTest(llvm::Value*,
>> >>>> llvm::Value*,
>> >>>> llvm::Value*, llvm::APInt const*, bool)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> /scratch/1/ismail/llvm-upstream/lib/Analysis/InstructionSimplify.cpp:3388:0
>> >>>> #10 0x0000000001f87ad5 simplifySelectWithICmpCond(llvm::Value*,
>> >>>> llvm::Value*, llvm::Value*, (anonymous namespace)::Query const&,
>> >>>> unsigned
>> >>>> int)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> /scratch/1/ismail/llvm-upstream/lib/Analysis/InstructionSimplify.cpp:3434:0
>> >>>> #11 0x0000000001f87f6a SimplifySelectInst(llvm::Value*, llvm::Value*,
>> >>>> llvm::Value*, (anonymous namespace)::Query const&, unsigned int)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> /scratch/1/ismail/llvm-upstream/lib/Analysis/InstructionSimplify.cpp:3515:0
>> >>>> #12 0x0000000001f87fe3 llvm::SimplifySelectInst(llvm::Value*,
>> >>>> llvm::Value*, llvm::Value*, llvm::DataLayout const&,
>> >>>> llvm::TargetLibraryInfo
>> >>>> const*, llvm::DominatorTree const*, llvm::AssumptionCache*,
>> >>>> llvm::Instruction const*)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> /scratch/1/ismail/llvm-upstream/lib/Analysis/InstructionSimplify.cpp:3528:0
>> >>>> ...snip...
>> >>>> Stack dump:
>> >>>> 0.  Program arguments: debugbuild/bin/opt -instcombine -licm
>> >>>> -simplifycfg -instcombine -loop-rotate -loop-vectorize -instcombine
>> >>>> 1.  Running pass 'Function Pass Manager' on module '<stdin>'.
>> >>>> 2.  Running pass 'Combine redundant instructions' on function
>> >>>> '@strsave'
>> >>>>
>> >>>> ---
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Looking at the code, the issue is with this line:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>   if (TrueVal == X && match(FalseVal, m_And(m_Specific(X),
>> >>>> m_APInt(C)))
>> >>>> &&
>> >>>>         *Y == ~*C)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> In this case Y is a 128-bit APInt, and so is the value that C is
>> >>>> extracted from, but the m_APInt matcher has code that calls
>> >>>> getSplatValue()
>> >>>> if the matched expression has vector type. So C ends up as an 8-bit
>> >>>> value,
>> >>>> triggering the assertion failure on the call to ==.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The issue is clear but I'm not sure what the correct fix should be --
>> >>>> whether this code is just not meant to work with vector types, or
>> >>>> whether
>> >>>> the call to getSplatValue() doesn't belong in the matcher, or whether
>> >>>> there
>> >>>> should be a corresponding call to getSplatValue() on the caller side,
>> >>>> or
>> >>>> something else.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Any help from someone with more context would be appreciated.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Thanks,
>> >>>> Ismail
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> >>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> >>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>> >
>
>