| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Turns out this approach is buggy. In discussion about follow on work, Sanjoy pointed out that we could be subject to circular logic problems.
Consider:
if (i u< L) leave()
if ((i + 1) u< L) leave()
print(a[i] + a[i+1])
If we know that L is less than UINT_MAX, we could possible prove (in a control dependent way) that i + 1 does not overflow. This gives us:
if (i u< L) leave()
if ((i +nuw 1) u< L) leave()
print(a[i] + a[i+1])
If we now do the transform this patch proposed, we end up with:
if ((i +nuw 1) u< L) leave_appropriately()
print(a[i] + a[i+1])
That would be a miscompile when i==-1. The problem here is that the control dependent nuw bits got used to prove something about the first condition. That's obviously invalid.
This won't happen today, but since I plan to enhance LVI/CVP with exactly that transform at some point in the not too distant future...
llvm-svn: 250430
|
