[llvm-dev] PartialAlias: different start addresses

[Hal Finkel via llvm-dev]

On 07/16/2017 03:27 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 16, 2017, 12:45 PM Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt 
> <mailto:nunoplopes at sapo.pt>> wrote:
>
>     >On 07/15/2017 04:51 AM, Nuno Lopes wrote:
>     >>> On 07/14/2017 04:37 PM, Nuno Lopes wrote:
>     >>>> Thank you all for your replies.
>     >>>> So here seems to be an agreement that the documentation for
>     >>>> PartialAlias is incorrect.
>     >>>>
>     >>>> Daniel: now you got me wondering about MustAlias. This is
>     what the
>     >>>> docs say:
>     >>>> "The MustAlias response may only be returned if the two memory
>     >>>> objects are *guaranteed to always start at exactly the same
>     location*"
>     >>>>
>     >>>> This statement is regardless of the access sizes.  For
>     example, in
>     >>>> SCEV AA:
>     >>>> // If they evaluate to the same expression, it's a MustAlias.
>     >>>> if (AS == BS)
>     >>>>  return MustAlias;
>     >>>>
>     >>>> AS/BS are scev expressions for the pointers. So no check for the
>     >>>> access size.
>     >>>>
>     >>>> So, does must needs to check for access sizes?  If so, SCEV AA is
>     >>>> buggy and the documentation needs tweaking.
>     >>>
>     >>> I'm under the impression that there is code that depends on
>     the size
>     >>> check, but I don't trust my recollection in this regard. SCEV
>     AA is
>     >>> known to cause miscompiles, IIRC, maybe you just found out why ;)
>     >>
>     >> It's true that the CFL AAs have this code:
>     >> if (LocA.Ptr == LocB.Ptr)
>     >>  return LocA.Size == LocB.Size ? MustAlias : PartialAlias;
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> I grepped for clients of MustAlias:
>     >> ~/llvm/lib/Transforms $ grep -Rl MustAlias .
>     >> ./ObjCARC/ObjCARCOpts.cpp
>     >> ./ObjCARC/ProvenanceAnalysis.cpp
>     >> ./Scalar/DeadStoreElimination.cpp
>     >> ./Scalar/GVN.cpp
>     >> ./Scalar/LICM.cpp
>     >> ./Scalar/LoopVersioningLICM.cpp
>     >> ./Scalar/MemCpyOptimizer.cpp
>     >> ./Scalar/MergedLoadStoreMotion.cpp
>     >> ./Scalar/NewGVN.cpp
>     >> ./Utils/VNCoercion.cpp
>     >>
>     >> I glanced over all the uses in these files and I couldn't find any
>     >> usage that requires sizes to match.  Actually most clients check
>     >> access sizes themselves. Most don't need equal sizes, just need
>     one to
>     >> be smaller than the other.
>     >
>     > Does aliasing actually check both ways?
>     > Otherwise, alias (A, B) will give different results than alias
>     (B, A).
>
>     Sorry for the delay.
>     I'm not sure I understood what you wrote, sorry.  What you wrote
>     is true in
>     general, but I don't see how MustAlias in particular is worse than
>     the other
>     AA results.
>
>
> Historically, in llvm, we have guaranteed that alias(a, b) ==alias(b, a)

We should continue to do so.

Thanks again,
Hal

>
> If it does:
>
> If start (a) == start (b)
>   If size(b) < size(a)
>       Return mustalias
>   Return may or partial
>
> It will give different answers for alias(a, b) and alias (b, a)
>
> Hence my question about whether it checked whether *either* was 
> smaller, or just in one direction.
>
>       And how not enforcing that access sizes are equal changes
>     things with respect to commutativity either.  Maybe I completely
>     missed your
>     point..
>
>     Nuno
>

-- 
Hal Finkel
Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170716/327c74be/attachment.html>