diff options
| author | bors <bors@rust-lang.org> | 2023-05-20 07:41:15 +0000 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bors <bors@rust-lang.org> | 2023-05-20 07:41:15 +0000 |
| commit | 25f084d5e007b9561d155be0b1a2e369c8e4b0ef (patch) | |
| tree | 953e4a2976aeb199b4118ae8b2c27a29c157565f /compiler/rustc_data_structures/src | |
| parent | e86fd62b6b198584a47798eb271d4b54c4dc96ec (diff) | |
| parent | 84339a6f0577b2bd9526383d2a6e3bda7b59c920 (diff) | |
| download | rust-25f084d5e007b9561d155be0b1a2e369c8e4b0ef.tar.gz rust-25f084d5e007b9561d155be0b1a2e369c8e4b0ef.zip | |
Auto merge of #111596 - cjgillot:dominator-bucket, r=Mark-Simulacrum
Process current bucket instead of parent's bucket when starting loop for dominators. The linked paper by Georgiadis suggests in ยง2.2.3 to process `bucket[w]` when beginning the loop, instead of `bucket[parent[w]]` when finishing it. In the test case, we correctly computed `idom[2] = 0` and `sdom[3] = 1`, but the algorithm returned `idom[3] = 1`, instead of the correct value 0, because of the path 0-7-2-3. This provoked LLVM ICE in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/111061#issuecomment-1546912112. LLVM checks that SSA assignments dominate uses using its own implementation of Lengauer-Tarjan, and saw case where rustc was breaking the dominance property. r? `@Mark-Simulacrum`
Diffstat (limited to 'compiler/rustc_data_structures/src')
| -rw-r--r-- | compiler/rustc_data_structures/src/graph/dominators/mod.rs | 16 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | compiler/rustc_data_structures/src/graph/dominators/tests.rs | 27 |
2 files changed, 35 insertions, 8 deletions
diff --git a/compiler/rustc_data_structures/src/graph/dominators/mod.rs b/compiler/rustc_data_structures/src/graph/dominators/mod.rs index a7de709ba72..594ed1ad2e7 100644 --- a/compiler/rustc_data_structures/src/graph/dominators/mod.rs +++ b/compiler/rustc_data_structures/src/graph/dominators/mod.rs @@ -109,28 +109,27 @@ pub fn dominators<G: ControlFlowGraph>(graph: G) -> Dominators<G::Node> { // they have been placed in the bucket. // // We compute a partial set of immediate dominators here. - let z = parent[w]; - for &v in bucket[z].iter() { + for &v in bucket[w].iter() { // This uses the result of Lemma 5 from section 2 from the original // 1979 paper, to compute either the immediate or relative dominator // for a given vertex v. // // eval returns a vertex y, for which semi[y] is minimum among - // vertices semi[v] +> y *> v. Note that semi[v] = z as we're in the - // z bucket. + // vertices semi[v] +> y *> v. Note that semi[v] = w as we're in the + // w bucket. // // Given such a vertex y, semi[y] <= semi[v] and idom[y] = idom[v]. // If semi[y] = semi[v], though, idom[v] = semi[v]. // // Using this, we can either set idom[v] to be: - // * semi[v] (i.e. z), if semi[y] is z + // * semi[v] (i.e. w), if semi[y] is w // * idom[y], otherwise // // We don't directly set to idom[y] though as it's not necessarily // known yet. The second preorder traversal will cleanup by updating // the idom for any that were missed in this pass. let y = eval(&mut parent, lastlinked, &semi, &mut label, v); - idom[v] = if semi[y] < z { y } else { z }; + idom[v] = if semi[y] < w { y } else { w }; } // This loop computes the semi[w] for w. @@ -213,10 +212,11 @@ pub fn dominators<G: ControlFlowGraph>(graph: G) -> Dominators<G::Node> { // If we don't yet know the idom directly, then push this vertex into // our semidominator's bucket, where it will get processed at a later // stage to compute its immediate dominator. - if parent[w] != semi[w] { + let z = parent[w]; + if z != semi[w] { bucket[semi[w]].push(w); } else { - idom[w] = parent[w]; + idom[w] = z; } // Optimization: We share the parent array between processed and not diff --git a/compiler/rustc_data_structures/src/graph/dominators/tests.rs b/compiler/rustc_data_structures/src/graph/dominators/tests.rs index 8b124516623..5472bb8087e 100644 --- a/compiler/rustc_data_structures/src/graph/dominators/tests.rs +++ b/compiler/rustc_data_structures/src/graph/dominators/tests.rs @@ -53,3 +53,30 @@ fn immediate_dominator() { assert_eq!(dominators.immediate_dominator(2), Some(1)); assert_eq!(dominators.immediate_dominator(3), Some(2)); } + +#[test] +fn transitive_dominator() { + let graph = TestGraph::new( + 0, + &[ + // First tree branch. + (0, 1), + (1, 2), + (2, 3), + (3, 4), + // Second tree branch. + (1, 5), + (5, 6), + // Third tree branch. + (0, 7), + // These links make 0 the dominator for 2 and 3. + (7, 2), + (5, 3), + ], + ); + + let dom_tree = dominators(&graph); + let immediate_dominators = &dom_tree.immediate_dominators; + assert_eq!(immediate_dominators[2], Some(0)); + assert_eq!(immediate_dominators[3], Some(0)); // This used to return Some(1). +} |
