From 9529643e644766d3757981a7e76f7c44927c8029 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vedant Kumar <vsk@apple.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 00:09:51 +0000
Subject: [BPI] Use a safer constructor to calculate branch probabilities

BPI may trigger signed overflow UB while computing branch probabilities
for cold calls or to unreachables. For example, with our current choice
of weights, we'll crash if there are >= 2^12 branches to an unreachable.

Use a safer BranchProbability constructor which is better at handling
fractions with large denominators.

rdar://problem/29368161

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27862

llvm-svn: 290016
---
 .../Analysis/BranchProbabilityInfoTest.cpp         | 88 ++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 88 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 llvm/unittests/Analysis/BranchProbabilityInfoTest.cpp

(limited to 'llvm/unittests/Analysis/BranchProbabilityInfoTest.cpp')

diff --git a/llvm/unittests/Analysis/BranchProbabilityInfoTest.cpp b/llvm/unittests/Analysis/BranchProbabilityInfoTest.cpp
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..cbf8b50c762
--- /dev/null
+++ b/llvm/unittests/Analysis/BranchProbabilityInfoTest.cpp
@@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
+//===- BranchProbabilityInfoTest.cpp - BranchProbabilityInfo unit tests ---===//
+//
+//                     The LLVM Compiler Infrastructure
+//
+// This file is distributed under the University of Illinois Open Source
+// License. See LICENSE.TXT for details.
+//
+//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+#include "llvm/Analysis/BranchProbabilityInfo.h"
+#include "llvm/Analysis/LoopInfo.h"
+#include "llvm/AsmParser/Parser.h"
+#include "llvm/IR/BasicBlock.h"
+#include "llvm/IR/Constants.h"
+#include "llvm/IR/Dominators.h"
+#include "llvm/IR/Instructions.h"
+#include "llvm/IR/Function.h"
+#include "llvm/IR/LLVMContext.h"
+#include "llvm/IR/Module.h"
+#include "llvm/Support/DataTypes.h"
+#include "llvm/Support/SourceMgr.h"
+#include "llvm/Support/raw_ostream.h"
+#include "gtest/gtest.h"
+
+namespace llvm {
+namespace {
+
+struct BranchProbabilityInfoTest : public testing::Test {
+  std::unique_ptr<BranchProbabilityInfo> BPI;
+  std::unique_ptr<DominatorTree> DT;
+  std::unique_ptr<LoopInfo> LI;
+  LLVMContext C;
+
+  BranchProbabilityInfo &buildBPI(Function &F) {
+    DT.reset(new DominatorTree(F));
+    LI.reset(new LoopInfo(*DT));
+    BPI.reset(new BranchProbabilityInfo(F, *LI));
+    return *BPI;
+  }
+
+  std::unique_ptr<Module> makeLLVMModule() {
+    const char *ModuleString = "define void @f() { exit: ret void }\n";
+    SMDiagnostic Err;
+    return parseAssemblyString(ModuleString, Err, C);
+  }
+};
+
+TEST_F(BranchProbabilityInfoTest, StressUnreachableHeuristic) {
+  auto M = makeLLVMModule();
+  Function *F = M->getFunction("f");
+
+  // define void @f() {
+  // entry:
+  //   switch i32 undef, label %exit, [
+  //      i32 0, label %preexit
+  //      ...                   ;;< Add lots of cases to stress the heuristic.
+  //   ]
+  // preexit:
+  //   unreachable
+  // exit:
+  //   ret void
+  // }
+
+  auto *ExitBB = &F->back();
+  auto *EntryBB = BasicBlock::Create(C, "entry", F, /*insertBefore=*/ExitBB);
+
+  auto *PreExitBB =
+      BasicBlock::Create(C, "preexit", F, /*insertBefore=*/ExitBB);
+  new UnreachableInst(C, PreExitBB);
+
+  unsigned NumCases = 4096;
+  auto *I32 = IntegerType::get(C, 32);
+  auto *Undef = UndefValue::get(I32);
+  auto *Switch = SwitchInst::Create(Undef, ExitBB, NumCases, EntryBB);
+  for (unsigned I = 0; I < NumCases; ++I)
+    Switch->addCase(ConstantInt::get(I32, I), PreExitBB);
+
+  BranchProbabilityInfo &BPI = buildBPI(*F);
+
+  // FIXME: This doesn't seem optimal. Since all of the cases handled by the
+  // switch have the *same* destination block ("preexit"), shouldn't it be the
+  // hot one? I'd expect the results to be reversed here...
+  EXPECT_FALSE(BPI.isEdgeHot(EntryBB, PreExitBB));
+  EXPECT_TRUE(BPI.isEdgeHot(EntryBB, ExitBB));
+}
+
+} // end anonymous namespace
+} // end namespace llvm
-- 
cgit v1.2.3