================
@@ -1206,11 +1217,24 @@ struct DSEState {
return OW_None;
}
- bool isInvisibleToCallerAfterRet(const Value *V) {
+ bool isInvisibleToCallerAfterRet(const Value *V, const Value *Ptr,
+ const LocationSize StoreSize) {
if (isa<AllocaInst>(V))
return true;
auto I = InvisibleToCallerAfterRet.insert({V, false});
+ if (I.second && InvisibleToCallerAfterRetBounded.contains(V)) {
+ int64_t ValueOffset;
+ const Value *BaseValue =
+ GetPointerBaseWithConstantOffset(Ptr, ValueOffset, DL);
+ assert(BaseValue == V);
+ // This store is only invisible after return if we are in bounds of the
+ // range marked dead.
+ if (ValueOffset + StoreSize.getValue() <=
+ InvisibleToCallerAfterRetBounded[BaseValue] &&
+ ValueOffset >= 0)
+ return true;
+ }
if (I.second && isInvisibleToCallerOnUnwind(V) && isNoAliasCall(V))
----------------
boomanaiden154 wrote:
We only end up in this case if we inserted into the array (i.e., the pointer is
not explicitly marked `dead_on_return`) but is marked `dead_on_unwind`. For
objects marked dead_on_return the underlying object will always be explicitly
marked, so we will never insert at this point anyways. If they're not marked
dead_on_return, we get the same behavior.
We also do not want to potentially insert true into `InvisibleToCallerAfterRet`
because then we would not be looking at bounds information when we should be.
Also realizing now after looking at this we do not want to be inserting into
`InvisibleToCallerAfterRet` at all before we check for bounded dead_on_return
annotations because otherwise we might erroneously report false if we have two
stores at the end of a function to the same underlying object. Fixed +
regression test added.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/173694
_______________________________________________
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
