-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15.2k
[SeparateConstOffsetFromGEP] propagate const offset through GEP chains #143470
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
AlexMaclean
merged 5 commits into
llvm:main
from
AlexMaclean:dev/amaclean/upstream/const-gep-chain
Aug 21, 2025
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
58e8791
pre-commit tests
AlexMaclean 21f47f3
[SeparateConstOffsetFromGEP] propogate const offset through GEP chains
AlexMaclean b743cc7
fixup tests
AlexMaclean f5586bf
address comments
AlexMaclean eb5990b
Merge branch 'main' into dev/amaclean/upstream/const-gep-chain
AlexMaclean File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How is this related to the rest of the patch?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The intent is to ensure that when there is a chain of GEPs, we always separate constant offsets in order. This way the logic to pick up the constant offset from the first GEP and pass it along through the second always works as expected. My understanding is that a standard iteration doesn't have very strong guarantees about the ordering of blocks and a RPOT would ensure GEPs are transformed in order.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is there test coverage for this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not sure what a test for something like this look like. We can check the result (and the test cover that), but the traversal order is an implementation detail not directly visible in the outputs. We could arrange input basic blocks in the way that may give us incorrect results w/o RPOT, but that would also be a subject to no order guarantees.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I've just added
@test_rpotto demonstrate the possible benefit for this. Non-topologically sorted blocks are likely pretty rare but it seems like we may as well handle this case properly.