2016-02-19 11:14:42 +00:00
|
|
|
|
// +build amd64
|
2016-10-19 15:47:52 +00:00
|
|
|
|
// errorcheck -0 -d=ssa/prove/debug=1
|
2016-02-19 11:14:42 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
2016-04-12 16:24:34 +00:00
|
|
|
|
// Copyright 2016 The Go Authors. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
|
// Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style
|
|
|
|
|
// license that can be found in the LICENSE file.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-02-19 11:14:42 +00:00
|
|
|
|
package main
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-03-23 17:20:44 +00:00
|
|
|
|
import "math"
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-02-19 11:14:42 +00:00
|
|
|
|
func f0(a []int) int {
|
|
|
|
|
a[0] = 1
|
cmd/compile: make prove pass use unsatisfiability
Currently the prove pass uses implication queries. For each block, it
collects the set of branch conditions leading to that block, and
queries this fact table for whether any of these facts imply the
block's own branch condition (or its inverse). This works remarkably
well considering it doesn't do any deduction on these facts, but it
has various downsides:
1. It requires an implementation both of adding facts to the table and
determining implications. These are very nearly duals of each
other, but require separate implementations. Likewise, the process
of asserting facts of dominating branch conditions is very nearly
the dual of the process of querying implied branch conditions.
2. It leads to less effective use of derived facts. For example, the
prove pass currently derives facts about the relations between len
and cap, but can't make use of these unless a branch condition is
in the exact form of a derived fact. If one of these derived facts
contradicts another fact, it won't notice or make use of this.
This CL changes the approach of the prove pass to instead use
*contradiction* instead of implication. Rather than ever querying a
branch condition, it simply adds branch conditions to the fact table.
If this leads to a contradiction (specifically, it makes the fact set
unsatisfiable), that branch is impossible and can be cut. As a result,
1. We can eliminate the code for determining implications
(factsTable.get disappears entirely). Also, there is now a single
implementation of visiting and asserting branch conditions, since
we don't have to flip them around to treat them as facts in one
place and queries in another.
2. Derived facts can be used effectively. It doesn't matter *why* the
fact table is unsatisfiable; a contradiction in any of the facts is
enough.
3. As an added benefit, it's now quite easy to avoid traversing beyond
provably-unreachable blocks. In contrast, the current
implementation always visits all blocks.
The prove pass already has nearly all of the mechanism necessary to
compute unsatisfiability, which means this both simplifies the code
and makes it more powerful.
The only complication is that the current implication procedure has a
hack for dealing with the 0 <= Args[0] condition of OpIsInBounds and
OpIsSliceInBounds. We replace this with asserting the appropriate fact
when we process one of these conditions. This seems much cleaner
anyway, and works because we can now take advantage of derived facts.
This has no measurable effect on compiler performance.
Effectiveness:
There is exactly one condition in all of std and cmd that this fails
to prove that the old implementation could: (int64(^uint(0)>>1) < x)
in encoding/gob. This can never be true because x is an int, and it's
basically coincidence that the old code gets this. (For example, it
fails to prove the similar (x < ^int64(^uint(0)>>1)) condition that
immediately precedes it, and even though the conditions are logically
unrelated, it wouldn't get the second one if it hadn't first processed
the first!)
It does, however, prove a few dozen additional branches. These come
from facts that are added to the fact table about the relations
between len and cap. These were almost never queried directly before,
but could lead to contradictions, which the unsat-based approach is
able to use.
There are exactly two branches in std and cmd that this implementation
proves in the *other* direction. This sounds scary, but is okay
because both occur in already-unreachable blocks, so it doesn't matter
what we chose. Because the fact table logic is sound but incomplete,
it fails to prove that the block isn't reachable, even though it is
able to prove that both outgoing branches are impossible. We could
turn these blocks into BlockExit blocks, but it doesn't seem worth the
trouble of the extra proof effort for something that happens twice in
all of std and cmd.
Tests:
This CL updates test/prove.go to change the expected messages because
it can no longer give a "reason" why it proved or disproved a
condition. It also adds a new test of a branch it couldn't prove
before.
It mostly guts test/sliceopt.go, removing everything related to slice
bounds optimizations and moving a few relevant tests to test/prove.go.
Much of this test is actually unreachable. The new prove pass figures
this out and doesn't try to prove anything about the unreachable
parts. The output on the unreachable parts is already suspect because
anything can be proved at that point, so it's really just a regression
test for an algorithm the compiler no longer uses.
This is a step toward fixing #23354. That issue is quite easy to fix
once we can use derived facts effectively.
Change-Id: Ia48a1b9ee081310579fe474e4a61857424ff8ce8
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/87478
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
2018-01-10 21:28:58 +00:00
|
|
|
|
a[0] = 1 // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
2016-02-19 11:14:42 +00:00
|
|
|
|
a[6] = 1
|
cmd/compile: make prove pass use unsatisfiability
Currently the prove pass uses implication queries. For each block, it
collects the set of branch conditions leading to that block, and
queries this fact table for whether any of these facts imply the
block's own branch condition (or its inverse). This works remarkably
well considering it doesn't do any deduction on these facts, but it
has various downsides:
1. It requires an implementation both of adding facts to the table and
determining implications. These are very nearly duals of each
other, but require separate implementations. Likewise, the process
of asserting facts of dominating branch conditions is very nearly
the dual of the process of querying implied branch conditions.
2. It leads to less effective use of derived facts. For example, the
prove pass currently derives facts about the relations between len
and cap, but can't make use of these unless a branch condition is
in the exact form of a derived fact. If one of these derived facts
contradicts another fact, it won't notice or make use of this.
This CL changes the approach of the prove pass to instead use
*contradiction* instead of implication. Rather than ever querying a
branch condition, it simply adds branch conditions to the fact table.
If this leads to a contradiction (specifically, it makes the fact set
unsatisfiable), that branch is impossible and can be cut. As a result,
1. We can eliminate the code for determining implications
(factsTable.get disappears entirely). Also, there is now a single
implementation of visiting and asserting branch conditions, since
we don't have to flip them around to treat them as facts in one
place and queries in another.
2. Derived facts can be used effectively. It doesn't matter *why* the
fact table is unsatisfiable; a contradiction in any of the facts is
enough.
3. As an added benefit, it's now quite easy to avoid traversing beyond
provably-unreachable blocks. In contrast, the current
implementation always visits all blocks.
The prove pass already has nearly all of the mechanism necessary to
compute unsatisfiability, which means this both simplifies the code
and makes it more powerful.
The only complication is that the current implication procedure has a
hack for dealing with the 0 <= Args[0] condition of OpIsInBounds and
OpIsSliceInBounds. We replace this with asserting the appropriate fact
when we process one of these conditions. This seems much cleaner
anyway, and works because we can now take advantage of derived facts.
This has no measurable effect on compiler performance.
Effectiveness:
There is exactly one condition in all of std and cmd that this fails
to prove that the old implementation could: (int64(^uint(0)>>1) < x)
in encoding/gob. This can never be true because x is an int, and it's
basically coincidence that the old code gets this. (For example, it
fails to prove the similar (x < ^int64(^uint(0)>>1)) condition that
immediately precedes it, and even though the conditions are logically
unrelated, it wouldn't get the second one if it hadn't first processed
the first!)
It does, however, prove a few dozen additional branches. These come
from facts that are added to the fact table about the relations
between len and cap. These were almost never queried directly before,
but could lead to contradictions, which the unsat-based approach is
able to use.
There are exactly two branches in std and cmd that this implementation
proves in the *other* direction. This sounds scary, but is okay
because both occur in already-unreachable blocks, so it doesn't matter
what we chose. Because the fact table logic is sound but incomplete,
it fails to prove that the block isn't reachable, even though it is
able to prove that both outgoing branches are impossible. We could
turn these blocks into BlockExit blocks, but it doesn't seem worth the
trouble of the extra proof effort for something that happens twice in
all of std and cmd.
Tests:
This CL updates test/prove.go to change the expected messages because
it can no longer give a "reason" why it proved or disproved a
condition. It also adds a new test of a branch it couldn't prove
before.
It mostly guts test/sliceopt.go, removing everything related to slice
bounds optimizations and moving a few relevant tests to test/prove.go.
Much of this test is actually unreachable. The new prove pass figures
this out and doesn't try to prove anything about the unreachable
parts. The output on the unreachable parts is already suspect because
anything can be proved at that point, so it's really just a regression
test for an algorithm the compiler no longer uses.
This is a step toward fixing #23354. That issue is quite easy to fix
once we can use derived facts effectively.
Change-Id: Ia48a1b9ee081310579fe474e4a61857424ff8ce8
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/87478
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
2018-01-10 21:28:58 +00:00
|
|
|
|
a[6] = 1 // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
|
|
|
|
a[5] = 1 // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
2016-03-23 17:20:44 +00:00
|
|
|
|
a[5] = 1 // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
2016-02-19 11:14:42 +00:00
|
|
|
|
return 13
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func f1(a []int) int {
|
|
|
|
|
if len(a) <= 5 {
|
|
|
|
|
return 18
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
cmd/compile: make prove pass use unsatisfiability
Currently the prove pass uses implication queries. For each block, it
collects the set of branch conditions leading to that block, and
queries this fact table for whether any of these facts imply the
block's own branch condition (or its inverse). This works remarkably
well considering it doesn't do any deduction on these facts, but it
has various downsides:
1. It requires an implementation both of adding facts to the table and
determining implications. These are very nearly duals of each
other, but require separate implementations. Likewise, the process
of asserting facts of dominating branch conditions is very nearly
the dual of the process of querying implied branch conditions.
2. It leads to less effective use of derived facts. For example, the
prove pass currently derives facts about the relations between len
and cap, but can't make use of these unless a branch condition is
in the exact form of a derived fact. If one of these derived facts
contradicts another fact, it won't notice or make use of this.
This CL changes the approach of the prove pass to instead use
*contradiction* instead of implication. Rather than ever querying a
branch condition, it simply adds branch conditions to the fact table.
If this leads to a contradiction (specifically, it makes the fact set
unsatisfiable), that branch is impossible and can be cut. As a result,
1. We can eliminate the code for determining implications
(factsTable.get disappears entirely). Also, there is now a single
implementation of visiting and asserting branch conditions, since
we don't have to flip them around to treat them as facts in one
place and queries in another.
2. Derived facts can be used effectively. It doesn't matter *why* the
fact table is unsatisfiable; a contradiction in any of the facts is
enough.
3. As an added benefit, it's now quite easy to avoid traversing beyond
provably-unreachable blocks. In contrast, the current
implementation always visits all blocks.
The prove pass already has nearly all of the mechanism necessary to
compute unsatisfiability, which means this both simplifies the code
and makes it more powerful.
The only complication is that the current implication procedure has a
hack for dealing with the 0 <= Args[0] condition of OpIsInBounds and
OpIsSliceInBounds. We replace this with asserting the appropriate fact
when we process one of these conditions. This seems much cleaner
anyway, and works because we can now take advantage of derived facts.
This has no measurable effect on compiler performance.
Effectiveness:
There is exactly one condition in all of std and cmd that this fails
to prove that the old implementation could: (int64(^uint(0)>>1) < x)
in encoding/gob. This can never be true because x is an int, and it's
basically coincidence that the old code gets this. (For example, it
fails to prove the similar (x < ^int64(^uint(0)>>1)) condition that
immediately precedes it, and even though the conditions are logically
unrelated, it wouldn't get the second one if it hadn't first processed
the first!)
It does, however, prove a few dozen additional branches. These come
from facts that are added to the fact table about the relations
between len and cap. These were almost never queried directly before,
but could lead to contradictions, which the unsat-based approach is
able to use.
There are exactly two branches in std and cmd that this implementation
proves in the *other* direction. This sounds scary, but is okay
because both occur in already-unreachable blocks, so it doesn't matter
what we chose. Because the fact table logic is sound but incomplete,
it fails to prove that the block isn't reachable, even though it is
able to prove that both outgoing branches are impossible. We could
turn these blocks into BlockExit blocks, but it doesn't seem worth the
trouble of the extra proof effort for something that happens twice in
all of std and cmd.
Tests:
This CL updates test/prove.go to change the expected messages because
it can no longer give a "reason" why it proved or disproved a
condition. It also adds a new test of a branch it couldn't prove
before.
It mostly guts test/sliceopt.go, removing everything related to slice
bounds optimizations and moving a few relevant tests to test/prove.go.
Much of this test is actually unreachable. The new prove pass figures
this out and doesn't try to prove anything about the unreachable
parts. The output on the unreachable parts is already suspect because
anything can be proved at that point, so it's really just a regression
test for an algorithm the compiler no longer uses.
This is a step toward fixing #23354. That issue is quite easy to fix
once we can use derived facts effectively.
Change-Id: Ia48a1b9ee081310579fe474e4a61857424ff8ce8
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/87478
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
2018-01-10 21:28:58 +00:00
|
|
|
|
a[0] = 1 // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
|
|
|
|
a[0] = 1 // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
2016-02-19 11:14:42 +00:00
|
|
|
|
a[6] = 1
|
cmd/compile: make prove pass use unsatisfiability
Currently the prove pass uses implication queries. For each block, it
collects the set of branch conditions leading to that block, and
queries this fact table for whether any of these facts imply the
block's own branch condition (or its inverse). This works remarkably
well considering it doesn't do any deduction on these facts, but it
has various downsides:
1. It requires an implementation both of adding facts to the table and
determining implications. These are very nearly duals of each
other, but require separate implementations. Likewise, the process
of asserting facts of dominating branch conditions is very nearly
the dual of the process of querying implied branch conditions.
2. It leads to less effective use of derived facts. For example, the
prove pass currently derives facts about the relations between len
and cap, but can't make use of these unless a branch condition is
in the exact form of a derived fact. If one of these derived facts
contradicts another fact, it won't notice or make use of this.
This CL changes the approach of the prove pass to instead use
*contradiction* instead of implication. Rather than ever querying a
branch condition, it simply adds branch conditions to the fact table.
If this leads to a contradiction (specifically, it makes the fact set
unsatisfiable), that branch is impossible and can be cut. As a result,
1. We can eliminate the code for determining implications
(factsTable.get disappears entirely). Also, there is now a single
implementation of visiting and asserting branch conditions, since
we don't have to flip them around to treat them as facts in one
place and queries in another.
2. Derived facts can be used effectively. It doesn't matter *why* the
fact table is unsatisfiable; a contradiction in any of the facts is
enough.
3. As an added benefit, it's now quite easy to avoid traversing beyond
provably-unreachable blocks. In contrast, the current
implementation always visits all blocks.
The prove pass already has nearly all of the mechanism necessary to
compute unsatisfiability, which means this both simplifies the code
and makes it more powerful.
The only complication is that the current implication procedure has a
hack for dealing with the 0 <= Args[0] condition of OpIsInBounds and
OpIsSliceInBounds. We replace this with asserting the appropriate fact
when we process one of these conditions. This seems much cleaner
anyway, and works because we can now take advantage of derived facts.
This has no measurable effect on compiler performance.
Effectiveness:
There is exactly one condition in all of std and cmd that this fails
to prove that the old implementation could: (int64(^uint(0)>>1) < x)
in encoding/gob. This can never be true because x is an int, and it's
basically coincidence that the old code gets this. (For example, it
fails to prove the similar (x < ^int64(^uint(0)>>1)) condition that
immediately precedes it, and even though the conditions are logically
unrelated, it wouldn't get the second one if it hadn't first processed
the first!)
It does, however, prove a few dozen additional branches. These come
from facts that are added to the fact table about the relations
between len and cap. These were almost never queried directly before,
but could lead to contradictions, which the unsat-based approach is
able to use.
There are exactly two branches in std and cmd that this implementation
proves in the *other* direction. This sounds scary, but is okay
because both occur in already-unreachable blocks, so it doesn't matter
what we chose. Because the fact table logic is sound but incomplete,
it fails to prove that the block isn't reachable, even though it is
able to prove that both outgoing branches are impossible. We could
turn these blocks into BlockExit blocks, but it doesn't seem worth the
trouble of the extra proof effort for something that happens twice in
all of std and cmd.
Tests:
This CL updates test/prove.go to change the expected messages because
it can no longer give a "reason" why it proved or disproved a
condition. It also adds a new test of a branch it couldn't prove
before.
It mostly guts test/sliceopt.go, removing everything related to slice
bounds optimizations and moving a few relevant tests to test/prove.go.
Much of this test is actually unreachable. The new prove pass figures
this out and doesn't try to prove anything about the unreachable
parts. The output on the unreachable parts is already suspect because
anything can be proved at that point, so it's really just a regression
test for an algorithm the compiler no longer uses.
This is a step toward fixing #23354. That issue is quite easy to fix
once we can use derived facts effectively.
Change-Id: Ia48a1b9ee081310579fe474e4a61857424ff8ce8
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/87478
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
2018-01-10 21:28:58 +00:00
|
|
|
|
a[6] = 1 // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
|
|
|
|
a[5] = 1 // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
2016-03-23 17:20:44 +00:00
|
|
|
|
a[5] = 1 // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
2016-02-19 11:14:42 +00:00
|
|
|
|
return 26
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-03-23 17:20:44 +00:00
|
|
|
|
func f1b(a []int, i int, j uint) int {
|
2016-04-02 08:29:11 +00:00
|
|
|
|
if i >= 0 && i < len(a) {
|
cmd/compile: make prove pass use unsatisfiability
Currently the prove pass uses implication queries. For each block, it
collects the set of branch conditions leading to that block, and
queries this fact table for whether any of these facts imply the
block's own branch condition (or its inverse). This works remarkably
well considering it doesn't do any deduction on these facts, but it
has various downsides:
1. It requires an implementation both of adding facts to the table and
determining implications. These are very nearly duals of each
other, but require separate implementations. Likewise, the process
of asserting facts of dominating branch conditions is very nearly
the dual of the process of querying implied branch conditions.
2. It leads to less effective use of derived facts. For example, the
prove pass currently derives facts about the relations between len
and cap, but can't make use of these unless a branch condition is
in the exact form of a derived fact. If one of these derived facts
contradicts another fact, it won't notice or make use of this.
This CL changes the approach of the prove pass to instead use
*contradiction* instead of implication. Rather than ever querying a
branch condition, it simply adds branch conditions to the fact table.
If this leads to a contradiction (specifically, it makes the fact set
unsatisfiable), that branch is impossible and can be cut. As a result,
1. We can eliminate the code for determining implications
(factsTable.get disappears entirely). Also, there is now a single
implementation of visiting and asserting branch conditions, since
we don't have to flip them around to treat them as facts in one
place and queries in another.
2. Derived facts can be used effectively. It doesn't matter *why* the
fact table is unsatisfiable; a contradiction in any of the facts is
enough.
3. As an added benefit, it's now quite easy to avoid traversing beyond
provably-unreachable blocks. In contrast, the current
implementation always visits all blocks.
The prove pass already has nearly all of the mechanism necessary to
compute unsatisfiability, which means this both simplifies the code
and makes it more powerful.
The only complication is that the current implication procedure has a
hack for dealing with the 0 <= Args[0] condition of OpIsInBounds and
OpIsSliceInBounds. We replace this with asserting the appropriate fact
when we process one of these conditions. This seems much cleaner
anyway, and works because we can now take advantage of derived facts.
This has no measurable effect on compiler performance.
Effectiveness:
There is exactly one condition in all of std and cmd that this fails
to prove that the old implementation could: (int64(^uint(0)>>1) < x)
in encoding/gob. This can never be true because x is an int, and it's
basically coincidence that the old code gets this. (For example, it
fails to prove the similar (x < ^int64(^uint(0)>>1)) condition that
immediately precedes it, and even though the conditions are logically
unrelated, it wouldn't get the second one if it hadn't first processed
the first!)
It does, however, prove a few dozen additional branches. These come
from facts that are added to the fact table about the relations
between len and cap. These were almost never queried directly before,
but could lead to contradictions, which the unsat-based approach is
able to use.
There are exactly two branches in std and cmd that this implementation
proves in the *other* direction. This sounds scary, but is okay
because both occur in already-unreachable blocks, so it doesn't matter
what we chose. Because the fact table logic is sound but incomplete,
it fails to prove that the block isn't reachable, even though it is
able to prove that both outgoing branches are impossible. We could
turn these blocks into BlockExit blocks, but it doesn't seem worth the
trouble of the extra proof effort for something that happens twice in
all of std and cmd.
Tests:
This CL updates test/prove.go to change the expected messages because
it can no longer give a "reason" why it proved or disproved a
condition. It also adds a new test of a branch it couldn't prove
before.
It mostly guts test/sliceopt.go, removing everything related to slice
bounds optimizations and moving a few relevant tests to test/prove.go.
Much of this test is actually unreachable. The new prove pass figures
this out and doesn't try to prove anything about the unreachable
parts. The output on the unreachable parts is already suspect because
anything can be proved at that point, so it's really just a regression
test for an algorithm the compiler no longer uses.
This is a step toward fixing #23354. That issue is quite easy to fix
once we can use derived facts effectively.
Change-Id: Ia48a1b9ee081310579fe474e4a61857424ff8ce8
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/87478
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
2018-01-10 21:28:58 +00:00
|
|
|
|
return a[i] // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
2016-04-02 08:29:11 +00:00
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
if i >= 10 && i < len(a) {
|
cmd/compile: make prove pass use unsatisfiability
Currently the prove pass uses implication queries. For each block, it
collects the set of branch conditions leading to that block, and
queries this fact table for whether any of these facts imply the
block's own branch condition (or its inverse). This works remarkably
well considering it doesn't do any deduction on these facts, but it
has various downsides:
1. It requires an implementation both of adding facts to the table and
determining implications. These are very nearly duals of each
other, but require separate implementations. Likewise, the process
of asserting facts of dominating branch conditions is very nearly
the dual of the process of querying implied branch conditions.
2. It leads to less effective use of derived facts. For example, the
prove pass currently derives facts about the relations between len
and cap, but can't make use of these unless a branch condition is
in the exact form of a derived fact. If one of these derived facts
contradicts another fact, it won't notice or make use of this.
This CL changes the approach of the prove pass to instead use
*contradiction* instead of implication. Rather than ever querying a
branch condition, it simply adds branch conditions to the fact table.
If this leads to a contradiction (specifically, it makes the fact set
unsatisfiable), that branch is impossible and can be cut. As a result,
1. We can eliminate the code for determining implications
(factsTable.get disappears entirely). Also, there is now a single
implementation of visiting and asserting branch conditions, since
we don't have to flip them around to treat them as facts in one
place and queries in another.
2. Derived facts can be used effectively. It doesn't matter *why* the
fact table is unsatisfiable; a contradiction in any of the facts is
enough.
3. As an added benefit, it's now quite easy to avoid traversing beyond
provably-unreachable blocks. In contrast, the current
implementation always visits all blocks.
The prove pass already has nearly all of the mechanism necessary to
compute unsatisfiability, which means this both simplifies the code
and makes it more powerful.
The only complication is that the current implication procedure has a
hack for dealing with the 0 <= Args[0] condition of OpIsInBounds and
OpIsSliceInBounds. We replace this with asserting the appropriate fact
when we process one of these conditions. This seems much cleaner
anyway, and works because we can now take advantage of derived facts.
This has no measurable effect on compiler performance.
Effectiveness:
There is exactly one condition in all of std and cmd that this fails
to prove that the old implementation could: (int64(^uint(0)>>1) < x)
in encoding/gob. This can never be true because x is an int, and it's
basically coincidence that the old code gets this. (For example, it
fails to prove the similar (x < ^int64(^uint(0)>>1)) condition that
immediately precedes it, and even though the conditions are logically
unrelated, it wouldn't get the second one if it hadn't first processed
the first!)
It does, however, prove a few dozen additional branches. These come
from facts that are added to the fact table about the relations
between len and cap. These were almost never queried directly before,
but could lead to contradictions, which the unsat-based approach is
able to use.
There are exactly two branches in std and cmd that this implementation
proves in the *other* direction. This sounds scary, but is okay
because both occur in already-unreachable blocks, so it doesn't matter
what we chose. Because the fact table logic is sound but incomplete,
it fails to prove that the block isn't reachable, even though it is
able to prove that both outgoing branches are impossible. We could
turn these blocks into BlockExit blocks, but it doesn't seem worth the
trouble of the extra proof effort for something that happens twice in
all of std and cmd.
Tests:
This CL updates test/prove.go to change the expected messages because
it can no longer give a "reason" why it proved or disproved a
condition. It also adds a new test of a branch it couldn't prove
before.
It mostly guts test/sliceopt.go, removing everything related to slice
bounds optimizations and moving a few relevant tests to test/prove.go.
Much of this test is actually unreachable. The new prove pass figures
this out and doesn't try to prove anything about the unreachable
parts. The output on the unreachable parts is already suspect because
anything can be proved at that point, so it's really just a regression
test for an algorithm the compiler no longer uses.
This is a step toward fixing #23354. That issue is quite easy to fix
once we can use derived facts effectively.
Change-Id: Ia48a1b9ee081310579fe474e4a61857424ff8ce8
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/87478
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
2018-01-10 21:28:58 +00:00
|
|
|
|
return a[i] // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
2016-04-02 08:29:11 +00:00
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
if i >= 10 && i < len(a) {
|
cmd/compile: make prove pass use unsatisfiability
Currently the prove pass uses implication queries. For each block, it
collects the set of branch conditions leading to that block, and
queries this fact table for whether any of these facts imply the
block's own branch condition (or its inverse). This works remarkably
well considering it doesn't do any deduction on these facts, but it
has various downsides:
1. It requires an implementation both of adding facts to the table and
determining implications. These are very nearly duals of each
other, but require separate implementations. Likewise, the process
of asserting facts of dominating branch conditions is very nearly
the dual of the process of querying implied branch conditions.
2. It leads to less effective use of derived facts. For example, the
prove pass currently derives facts about the relations between len
and cap, but can't make use of these unless a branch condition is
in the exact form of a derived fact. If one of these derived facts
contradicts another fact, it won't notice or make use of this.
This CL changes the approach of the prove pass to instead use
*contradiction* instead of implication. Rather than ever querying a
branch condition, it simply adds branch conditions to the fact table.
If this leads to a contradiction (specifically, it makes the fact set
unsatisfiable), that branch is impossible and can be cut. As a result,
1. We can eliminate the code for determining implications
(factsTable.get disappears entirely). Also, there is now a single
implementation of visiting and asserting branch conditions, since
we don't have to flip them around to treat them as facts in one
place and queries in another.
2. Derived facts can be used effectively. It doesn't matter *why* the
fact table is unsatisfiable; a contradiction in any of the facts is
enough.
3. As an added benefit, it's now quite easy to avoid traversing beyond
provably-unreachable blocks. In contrast, the current
implementation always visits all blocks.
The prove pass already has nearly all of the mechanism necessary to
compute unsatisfiability, which means this both simplifies the code
and makes it more powerful.
The only complication is that the current implication procedure has a
hack for dealing with the 0 <= Args[0] condition of OpIsInBounds and
OpIsSliceInBounds. We replace this with asserting the appropriate fact
when we process one of these conditions. This seems much cleaner
anyway, and works because we can now take advantage of derived facts.
This has no measurable effect on compiler performance.
Effectiveness:
There is exactly one condition in all of std and cmd that this fails
to prove that the old implementation could: (int64(^uint(0)>>1) < x)
in encoding/gob. This can never be true because x is an int, and it's
basically coincidence that the old code gets this. (For example, it
fails to prove the similar (x < ^int64(^uint(0)>>1)) condition that
immediately precedes it, and even though the conditions are logically
unrelated, it wouldn't get the second one if it hadn't first processed
the first!)
It does, however, prove a few dozen additional branches. These come
from facts that are added to the fact table about the relations
between len and cap. These were almost never queried directly before,
but could lead to contradictions, which the unsat-based approach is
able to use.
There are exactly two branches in std and cmd that this implementation
proves in the *other* direction. This sounds scary, but is okay
because both occur in already-unreachable blocks, so it doesn't matter
what we chose. Because the fact table logic is sound but incomplete,
it fails to prove that the block isn't reachable, even though it is
able to prove that both outgoing branches are impossible. We could
turn these blocks into BlockExit blocks, but it doesn't seem worth the
trouble of the extra proof effort for something that happens twice in
all of std and cmd.
Tests:
This CL updates test/prove.go to change the expected messages because
it can no longer give a "reason" why it proved or disproved a
condition. It also adds a new test of a branch it couldn't prove
before.
It mostly guts test/sliceopt.go, removing everything related to slice
bounds optimizations and moving a few relevant tests to test/prove.go.
Much of this test is actually unreachable. The new prove pass figures
this out and doesn't try to prove anything about the unreachable
parts. The output on the unreachable parts is already suspect because
anything can be proved at that point, so it's really just a regression
test for an algorithm the compiler no longer uses.
This is a step toward fixing #23354. That issue is quite easy to fix
once we can use derived facts effectively.
Change-Id: Ia48a1b9ee081310579fe474e4a61857424ff8ce8
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/87478
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
2018-01-10 21:28:58 +00:00
|
|
|
|
return a[i] // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
2016-04-02 08:29:11 +00:00
|
|
|
|
}
|
2018-04-15 14:52:49 +00:00
|
|
|
|
if i >= 10 && i < len(a) {
|
|
|
|
|
return a[i-10] // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
2016-03-23 17:20:44 +00:00
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
if j < uint(len(a)) {
|
2016-04-02 08:29:11 +00:00
|
|
|
|
return a[j] // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return 0
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func f1c(a []int, i int64) int {
|
|
|
|
|
c := uint64(math.MaxInt64 + 10) // overflows int
|
|
|
|
|
d := int64(c)
|
|
|
|
|
if i >= d && i < int64(len(a)) {
|
|
|
|
|
// d overflows, should not be handled.
|
|
|
|
|
return a[i]
|
2016-03-23 17:20:44 +00:00
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return 0
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-02-19 11:14:42 +00:00
|
|
|
|
func f2(a []int) int {
|
2018-12-04 15:00:16 +00:00
|
|
|
|
for i := range a { // ERROR "Induction variable: limits \[0,\?\), increment 1$"
|
2016-03-02 11:58:27 +00:00
|
|
|
|
a[i+1] = i
|
cmd/compile: make prove pass use unsatisfiability
Currently the prove pass uses implication queries. For each block, it
collects the set of branch conditions leading to that block, and
queries this fact table for whether any of these facts imply the
block's own branch condition (or its inverse). This works remarkably
well considering it doesn't do any deduction on these facts, but it
has various downsides:
1. It requires an implementation both of adding facts to the table and
determining implications. These are very nearly duals of each
other, but require separate implementations. Likewise, the process
of asserting facts of dominating branch conditions is very nearly
the dual of the process of querying implied branch conditions.
2. It leads to less effective use of derived facts. For example, the
prove pass currently derives facts about the relations between len
and cap, but can't make use of these unless a branch condition is
in the exact form of a derived fact. If one of these derived facts
contradicts another fact, it won't notice or make use of this.
This CL changes the approach of the prove pass to instead use
*contradiction* instead of implication. Rather than ever querying a
branch condition, it simply adds branch conditions to the fact table.
If this leads to a contradiction (specifically, it makes the fact set
unsatisfiable), that branch is impossible and can be cut. As a result,
1. We can eliminate the code for determining implications
(factsTable.get disappears entirely). Also, there is now a single
implementation of visiting and asserting branch conditions, since
we don't have to flip them around to treat them as facts in one
place and queries in another.
2. Derived facts can be used effectively. It doesn't matter *why* the
fact table is unsatisfiable; a contradiction in any of the facts is
enough.
3. As an added benefit, it's now quite easy to avoid traversing beyond
provably-unreachable blocks. In contrast, the current
implementation always visits all blocks.
The prove pass already has nearly all of the mechanism necessary to
compute unsatisfiability, which means this both simplifies the code
and makes it more powerful.
The only complication is that the current implication procedure has a
hack for dealing with the 0 <= Args[0] condition of OpIsInBounds and
OpIsSliceInBounds. We replace this with asserting the appropriate fact
when we process one of these conditions. This seems much cleaner
anyway, and works because we can now take advantage of derived facts.
This has no measurable effect on compiler performance.
Effectiveness:
There is exactly one condition in all of std and cmd that this fails
to prove that the old implementation could: (int64(^uint(0)>>1) < x)
in encoding/gob. This can never be true because x is an int, and it's
basically coincidence that the old code gets this. (For example, it
fails to prove the similar (x < ^int64(^uint(0)>>1)) condition that
immediately precedes it, and even though the conditions are logically
unrelated, it wouldn't get the second one if it hadn't first processed
the first!)
It does, however, prove a few dozen additional branches. These come
from facts that are added to the fact table about the relations
between len and cap. These were almost never queried directly before,
but could lead to contradictions, which the unsat-based approach is
able to use.
There are exactly two branches in std and cmd that this implementation
proves in the *other* direction. This sounds scary, but is okay
because both occur in already-unreachable blocks, so it doesn't matter
what we chose. Because the fact table logic is sound but incomplete,
it fails to prove that the block isn't reachable, even though it is
able to prove that both outgoing branches are impossible. We could
turn these blocks into BlockExit blocks, but it doesn't seem worth the
trouble of the extra proof effort for something that happens twice in
all of std and cmd.
Tests:
This CL updates test/prove.go to change the expected messages because
it can no longer give a "reason" why it proved or disproved a
condition. It also adds a new test of a branch it couldn't prove
before.
It mostly guts test/sliceopt.go, removing everything related to slice
bounds optimizations and moving a few relevant tests to test/prove.go.
Much of this test is actually unreachable. The new prove pass figures
this out and doesn't try to prove anything about the unreachable
parts. The output on the unreachable parts is already suspect because
anything can be proved at that point, so it's really just a regression
test for an algorithm the compiler no longer uses.
This is a step toward fixing #23354. That issue is quite easy to fix
once we can use derived facts effectively.
Change-Id: Ia48a1b9ee081310579fe474e4a61857424ff8ce8
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/87478
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
2018-01-10 21:28:58 +00:00
|
|
|
|
a[i+1] = i // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
2016-02-19 11:14:42 +00:00
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return 34
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func f3(a []uint) int {
|
|
|
|
|
for i := uint(0); i < uint(len(a)); i++ {
|
|
|
|
|
a[i] = i // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return 41
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func f4a(a, b, c int) int {
|
|
|
|
|
if a < b {
|
|
|
|
|
if a == b { // ERROR "Disproved Eq64$"
|
|
|
|
|
return 47
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-02-20 17:46:08 +00:00
|
|
|
|
if a > b { // ERROR "Disproved Less64$"
|
2016-02-19 11:14:42 +00:00
|
|
|
|
return 50
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
cmd/compile: make prove pass use unsatisfiability
Currently the prove pass uses implication queries. For each block, it
collects the set of branch conditions leading to that block, and
queries this fact table for whether any of these facts imply the
block's own branch condition (or its inverse). This works remarkably
well considering it doesn't do any deduction on these facts, but it
has various downsides:
1. It requires an implementation both of adding facts to the table and
determining implications. These are very nearly duals of each
other, but require separate implementations. Likewise, the process
of asserting facts of dominating branch conditions is very nearly
the dual of the process of querying implied branch conditions.
2. It leads to less effective use of derived facts. For example, the
prove pass currently derives facts about the relations between len
and cap, but can't make use of these unless a branch condition is
in the exact form of a derived fact. If one of these derived facts
contradicts another fact, it won't notice or make use of this.
This CL changes the approach of the prove pass to instead use
*contradiction* instead of implication. Rather than ever querying a
branch condition, it simply adds branch conditions to the fact table.
If this leads to a contradiction (specifically, it makes the fact set
unsatisfiable), that branch is impossible and can be cut. As a result,
1. We can eliminate the code for determining implications
(factsTable.get disappears entirely). Also, there is now a single
implementation of visiting and asserting branch conditions, since
we don't have to flip them around to treat them as facts in one
place and queries in another.
2. Derived facts can be used effectively. It doesn't matter *why* the
fact table is unsatisfiable; a contradiction in any of the facts is
enough.
3. As an added benefit, it's now quite easy to avoid traversing beyond
provably-unreachable blocks. In contrast, the current
implementation always visits all blocks.
The prove pass already has nearly all of the mechanism necessary to
compute unsatisfiability, which means this both simplifies the code
and makes it more powerful.
The only complication is that the current implication procedure has a
hack for dealing with the 0 <= Args[0] condition of OpIsInBounds and
OpIsSliceInBounds. We replace this with asserting the appropriate fact
when we process one of these conditions. This seems much cleaner
anyway, and works because we can now take advantage of derived facts.
This has no measurable effect on compiler performance.
Effectiveness:
There is exactly one condition in all of std and cmd that this fails
to prove that the old implementation could: (int64(^uint(0)>>1) < x)
in encoding/gob. This can never be true because x is an int, and it's
basically coincidence that the old code gets this. (For example, it
fails to prove the similar (x < ^int64(^uint(0)>>1)) condition that
immediately precedes it, and even though the conditions are logically
unrelated, it wouldn't get the second one if it hadn't first processed
the first!)
It does, however, prove a few dozen additional branches. These come
from facts that are added to the fact table about the relations
between len and cap. These were almost never queried directly before,
but could lead to contradictions, which the unsat-based approach is
able to use.
There are exactly two branches in std and cmd that this implementation
proves in the *other* direction. This sounds scary, but is okay
because both occur in already-unreachable blocks, so it doesn't matter
what we chose. Because the fact table logic is sound but incomplete,
it fails to prove that the block isn't reachable, even though it is
able to prove that both outgoing branches are impossible. We could
turn these blocks into BlockExit blocks, but it doesn't seem worth the
trouble of the extra proof effort for something that happens twice in
all of std and cmd.
Tests:
This CL updates test/prove.go to change the expected messages because
it can no longer give a "reason" why it proved or disproved a
condition. It also adds a new test of a branch it couldn't prove
before.
It mostly guts test/sliceopt.go, removing everything related to slice
bounds optimizations and moving a few relevant tests to test/prove.go.
Much of this test is actually unreachable. The new prove pass figures
this out and doesn't try to prove anything about the unreachable
parts. The output on the unreachable parts is already suspect because
anything can be proved at that point, so it's really just a regression
test for an algorithm the compiler no longer uses.
This is a step toward fixing #23354. That issue is quite easy to fix
once we can use derived facts effectively.
Change-Id: Ia48a1b9ee081310579fe474e4a61857424ff8ce8
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/87478
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
2018-01-10 21:28:58 +00:00
|
|
|
|
if a < b { // ERROR "Proved Less64$"
|
2016-02-19 11:14:42 +00:00
|
|
|
|
return 53
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
cmd/compile: make prove pass use unsatisfiability
Currently the prove pass uses implication queries. For each block, it
collects the set of branch conditions leading to that block, and
queries this fact table for whether any of these facts imply the
block's own branch condition (or its inverse). This works remarkably
well considering it doesn't do any deduction on these facts, but it
has various downsides:
1. It requires an implementation both of adding facts to the table and
determining implications. These are very nearly duals of each
other, but require separate implementations. Likewise, the process
of asserting facts of dominating branch conditions is very nearly
the dual of the process of querying implied branch conditions.
2. It leads to less effective use of derived facts. For example, the
prove pass currently derives facts about the relations between len
and cap, but can't make use of these unless a branch condition is
in the exact form of a derived fact. If one of these derived facts
contradicts another fact, it won't notice or make use of this.
This CL changes the approach of the prove pass to instead use
*contradiction* instead of implication. Rather than ever querying a
branch condition, it simply adds branch conditions to the fact table.
If this leads to a contradiction (specifically, it makes the fact set
unsatisfiable), that branch is impossible and can be cut. As a result,
1. We can eliminate the code for determining implications
(factsTable.get disappears entirely). Also, there is now a single
implementation of visiting and asserting branch conditions, since
we don't have to flip them around to treat them as facts in one
place and queries in another.
2. Derived facts can be used effectively. It doesn't matter *why* the
fact table is unsatisfiable; a contradiction in any of the facts is
enough.
3. As an added benefit, it's now quite easy to avoid traversing beyond
provably-unreachable blocks. In contrast, the current
implementation always visits all blocks.
The prove pass already has nearly all of the mechanism necessary to
compute unsatisfiability, which means this both simplifies the code
and makes it more powerful.
The only complication is that the current implication procedure has a
hack for dealing with the 0 <= Args[0] condition of OpIsInBounds and
OpIsSliceInBounds. We replace this with asserting the appropriate fact
when we process one of these conditions. This seems much cleaner
anyway, and works because we can now take advantage of derived facts.
This has no measurable effect on compiler performance.
Effectiveness:
There is exactly one condition in all of std and cmd that this fails
to prove that the old implementation could: (int64(^uint(0)>>1) < x)
in encoding/gob. This can never be true because x is an int, and it's
basically coincidence that the old code gets this. (For example, it
fails to prove the similar (x < ^int64(^uint(0)>>1)) condition that
immediately precedes it, and even though the conditions are logically
unrelated, it wouldn't get the second one if it hadn't first processed
the first!)
It does, however, prove a few dozen additional branches. These come
from facts that are added to the fact table about the relations
between len and cap. These were almost never queried directly before,
but could lead to contradictions, which the unsat-based approach is
able to use.
There are exactly two branches in std and cmd that this implementation
proves in the *other* direction. This sounds scary, but is okay
because both occur in already-unreachable blocks, so it doesn't matter
what we chose. Because the fact table logic is sound but incomplete,
it fails to prove that the block isn't reachable, even though it is
able to prove that both outgoing branches are impossible. We could
turn these blocks into BlockExit blocks, but it doesn't seem worth the
trouble of the extra proof effort for something that happens twice in
all of std and cmd.
Tests:
This CL updates test/prove.go to change the expected messages because
it can no longer give a "reason" why it proved or disproved a
condition. It also adds a new test of a branch it couldn't prove
before.
It mostly guts test/sliceopt.go, removing everything related to slice
bounds optimizations and moving a few relevant tests to test/prove.go.
Much of this test is actually unreachable. The new prove pass figures
this out and doesn't try to prove anything about the unreachable
parts. The output on the unreachable parts is already suspect because
anything can be proved at that point, so it's really just a regression
test for an algorithm the compiler no longer uses.
This is a step toward fixing #23354. That issue is quite easy to fix
once we can use derived facts effectively.
Change-Id: Ia48a1b9ee081310579fe474e4a61857424ff8ce8
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/87478
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
2018-01-10 21:28:58 +00:00
|
|
|
|
// We can't get to this point and prove knows that, so
|
|
|
|
|
// there's no message for the next (obvious) branch.
|
|
|
|
|
if a != a {
|
2016-02-19 11:14:42 +00:00
|
|
|
|
return 56
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return 61
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return 63
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func f4b(a, b, c int) int {
|
|
|
|
|
if a <= b {
|
|
|
|
|
if a >= b {
|
|
|
|
|
if a == b { // ERROR "Proved Eq64$"
|
|
|
|
|
return 70
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return 75
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return 77
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return 79
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func f4c(a, b, c int) int {
|
|
|
|
|
if a <= b {
|
|
|
|
|
if a >= b {
|
|
|
|
|
if a != b { // ERROR "Disproved Neq64$"
|
|
|
|
|
return 73
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return 75
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return 77
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return 79
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func f4d(a, b, c int) int {
|
|
|
|
|
if a < b {
|
|
|
|
|
if a < c {
|
cmd/compile: make prove pass use unsatisfiability
Currently the prove pass uses implication queries. For each block, it
collects the set of branch conditions leading to that block, and
queries this fact table for whether any of these facts imply the
block's own branch condition (or its inverse). This works remarkably
well considering it doesn't do any deduction on these facts, but it
has various downsides:
1. It requires an implementation both of adding facts to the table and
determining implications. These are very nearly duals of each
other, but require separate implementations. Likewise, the process
of asserting facts of dominating branch conditions is very nearly
the dual of the process of querying implied branch conditions.
2. It leads to less effective use of derived facts. For example, the
prove pass currently derives facts about the relations between len
and cap, but can't make use of these unless a branch condition is
in the exact form of a derived fact. If one of these derived facts
contradicts another fact, it won't notice or make use of this.
This CL changes the approach of the prove pass to instead use
*contradiction* instead of implication. Rather than ever querying a
branch condition, it simply adds branch conditions to the fact table.
If this leads to a contradiction (specifically, it makes the fact set
unsatisfiable), that branch is impossible and can be cut. As a result,
1. We can eliminate the code for determining implications
(factsTable.get disappears entirely). Also, there is now a single
implementation of visiting and asserting branch conditions, since
we don't have to flip them around to treat them as facts in one
place and queries in another.
2. Derived facts can be used effectively. It doesn't matter *why* the
fact table is unsatisfiable; a contradiction in any of the facts is
enough.
3. As an added benefit, it's now quite easy to avoid traversing beyond
provably-unreachable blocks. In contrast, the current
implementation always visits all blocks.
The prove pass already has nearly all of the mechanism necessary to
compute unsatisfiability, which means this both simplifies the code
and makes it more powerful.
The only complication is that the current implication procedure has a
hack for dealing with the 0 <= Args[0] condition of OpIsInBounds and
OpIsSliceInBounds. We replace this with asserting the appropriate fact
when we process one of these conditions. This seems much cleaner
anyway, and works because we can now take advantage of derived facts.
This has no measurable effect on compiler performance.
Effectiveness:
There is exactly one condition in all of std and cmd that this fails
to prove that the old implementation could: (int64(^uint(0)>>1) < x)
in encoding/gob. This can never be true because x is an int, and it's
basically coincidence that the old code gets this. (For example, it
fails to prove the similar (x < ^int64(^uint(0)>>1)) condition that
immediately precedes it, and even though the conditions are logically
unrelated, it wouldn't get the second one if it hadn't first processed
the first!)
It does, however, prove a few dozen additional branches. These come
from facts that are added to the fact table about the relations
between len and cap. These were almost never queried directly before,
but could lead to contradictions, which the unsat-based approach is
able to use.
There are exactly two branches in std and cmd that this implementation
proves in the *other* direction. This sounds scary, but is okay
because both occur in already-unreachable blocks, so it doesn't matter
what we chose. Because the fact table logic is sound but incomplete,
it fails to prove that the block isn't reachable, even though it is
able to prove that both outgoing branches are impossible. We could
turn these blocks into BlockExit blocks, but it doesn't seem worth the
trouble of the extra proof effort for something that happens twice in
all of std and cmd.
Tests:
This CL updates test/prove.go to change the expected messages because
it can no longer give a "reason" why it proved or disproved a
condition. It also adds a new test of a branch it couldn't prove
before.
It mostly guts test/sliceopt.go, removing everything related to slice
bounds optimizations and moving a few relevant tests to test/prove.go.
Much of this test is actually unreachable. The new prove pass figures
this out and doesn't try to prove anything about the unreachable
parts. The output on the unreachable parts is already suspect because
anything can be proved at that point, so it's really just a regression
test for an algorithm the compiler no longer uses.
This is a step toward fixing #23354. That issue is quite easy to fix
once we can use derived facts effectively.
Change-Id: Ia48a1b9ee081310579fe474e4a61857424ff8ce8
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/87478
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
2018-01-10 21:28:58 +00:00
|
|
|
|
if a < b { // ERROR "Proved Less64$"
|
|
|
|
|
if a < c { // ERROR "Proved Less64$"
|
2016-02-19 11:14:42 +00:00
|
|
|
|
return 87
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return 89
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return 91
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return 93
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return 95
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func f4e(a, b, c int) int {
|
|
|
|
|
if a < b {
|
2020-02-20 17:46:08 +00:00
|
|
|
|
if b > a { // ERROR "Proved Less64$"
|
2016-02-19 11:14:42 +00:00
|
|
|
|
return 101
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return 103
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return 105
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func f4f(a, b, c int) int {
|
|
|
|
|
if a <= b {
|
|
|
|
|
if b > a {
|
|
|
|
|
if b == a { // ERROR "Disproved Eq64$"
|
|
|
|
|
return 112
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return 114
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-02-20 17:46:08 +00:00
|
|
|
|
if b >= a { // ERROR "Proved Leq64$"
|
2016-02-19 11:14:42 +00:00
|
|
|
|
if b == a { // ERROR "Proved Eq64$"
|
|
|
|
|
return 118
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return 120
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return 122
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return 124
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func f5(a, b uint) int {
|
|
|
|
|
if a == b {
|
|
|
|
|
if a <= b { // ERROR "Proved Leq64U$"
|
|
|
|
|
return 130
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return 132
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return 134
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// These comparisons are compile time constants.
|
|
|
|
|
func f6a(a uint8) int {
|
|
|
|
|
if a < a { // ERROR "Disproved Less8U$"
|
|
|
|
|
return 140
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return 151
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func f6b(a uint8) int {
|
|
|
|
|
if a < a { // ERROR "Disproved Less8U$"
|
|
|
|
|
return 140
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return 151
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func f6x(a uint8) int {
|
2020-02-20 17:46:08 +00:00
|
|
|
|
if a > a { // ERROR "Disproved Less8U$"
|
2016-02-19 11:14:42 +00:00
|
|
|
|
return 143
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return 151
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func f6d(a uint8) int {
|
|
|
|
|
if a <= a { // ERROR "Proved Leq8U$"
|
|
|
|
|
return 146
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return 151
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func f6e(a uint8) int {
|
2020-02-20 17:46:08 +00:00
|
|
|
|
if a >= a { // ERROR "Proved Leq8U$"
|
2016-02-19 11:14:42 +00:00
|
|
|
|
return 149
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return 151
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func f7(a []int, b int) int {
|
|
|
|
|
if b < len(a) {
|
|
|
|
|
a[b] = 3
|
cmd/compile: make prove pass use unsatisfiability
Currently the prove pass uses implication queries. For each block, it
collects the set of branch conditions leading to that block, and
queries this fact table for whether any of these facts imply the
block's own branch condition (or its inverse). This works remarkably
well considering it doesn't do any deduction on these facts, but it
has various downsides:
1. It requires an implementation both of adding facts to the table and
determining implications. These are very nearly duals of each
other, but require separate implementations. Likewise, the process
of asserting facts of dominating branch conditions is very nearly
the dual of the process of querying implied branch conditions.
2. It leads to less effective use of derived facts. For example, the
prove pass currently derives facts about the relations between len
and cap, but can't make use of these unless a branch condition is
in the exact form of a derived fact. If one of these derived facts
contradicts another fact, it won't notice or make use of this.
This CL changes the approach of the prove pass to instead use
*contradiction* instead of implication. Rather than ever querying a
branch condition, it simply adds branch conditions to the fact table.
If this leads to a contradiction (specifically, it makes the fact set
unsatisfiable), that branch is impossible and can be cut. As a result,
1. We can eliminate the code for determining implications
(factsTable.get disappears entirely). Also, there is now a single
implementation of visiting and asserting branch conditions, since
we don't have to flip them around to treat them as facts in one
place and queries in another.
2. Derived facts can be used effectively. It doesn't matter *why* the
fact table is unsatisfiable; a contradiction in any of the facts is
enough.
3. As an added benefit, it's now quite easy to avoid traversing beyond
provably-unreachable blocks. In contrast, the current
implementation always visits all blocks.
The prove pass already has nearly all of the mechanism necessary to
compute unsatisfiability, which means this both simplifies the code
and makes it more powerful.
The only complication is that the current implication procedure has a
hack for dealing with the 0 <= Args[0] condition of OpIsInBounds and
OpIsSliceInBounds. We replace this with asserting the appropriate fact
when we process one of these conditions. This seems much cleaner
anyway, and works because we can now take advantage of derived facts.
This has no measurable effect on compiler performance.
Effectiveness:
There is exactly one condition in all of std and cmd that this fails
to prove that the old implementation could: (int64(^uint(0)>>1) < x)
in encoding/gob. This can never be true because x is an int, and it's
basically coincidence that the old code gets this. (For example, it
fails to prove the similar (x < ^int64(^uint(0)>>1)) condition that
immediately precedes it, and even though the conditions are logically
unrelated, it wouldn't get the second one if it hadn't first processed
the first!)
It does, however, prove a few dozen additional branches. These come
from facts that are added to the fact table about the relations
between len and cap. These were almost never queried directly before,
but could lead to contradictions, which the unsat-based approach is
able to use.
There are exactly two branches in std and cmd that this implementation
proves in the *other* direction. This sounds scary, but is okay
because both occur in already-unreachable blocks, so it doesn't matter
what we chose. Because the fact table logic is sound but incomplete,
it fails to prove that the block isn't reachable, even though it is
able to prove that both outgoing branches are impossible. We could
turn these blocks into BlockExit blocks, but it doesn't seem worth the
trouble of the extra proof effort for something that happens twice in
all of std and cmd.
Tests:
This CL updates test/prove.go to change the expected messages because
it can no longer give a "reason" why it proved or disproved a
condition. It also adds a new test of a branch it couldn't prove
before.
It mostly guts test/sliceopt.go, removing everything related to slice
bounds optimizations and moving a few relevant tests to test/prove.go.
Much of this test is actually unreachable. The new prove pass figures
this out and doesn't try to prove anything about the unreachable
parts. The output on the unreachable parts is already suspect because
anything can be proved at that point, so it's really just a regression
test for an algorithm the compiler no longer uses.
This is a step toward fixing #23354. That issue is quite easy to fix
once we can use derived facts effectively.
Change-Id: Ia48a1b9ee081310579fe474e4a61857424ff8ce8
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/87478
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
2018-01-10 21:28:58 +00:00
|
|
|
|
if b < len(a) { // ERROR "Proved Less64$"
|
|
|
|
|
a[b] = 5 // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
2016-02-19 11:14:42 +00:00
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return 161
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func f8(a, b uint) int {
|
|
|
|
|
if a == b {
|
|
|
|
|
return 166
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
if a > b {
|
|
|
|
|
return 169
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
if a < b { // ERROR "Proved Less64U$"
|
|
|
|
|
return 172
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return 174
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-03-07 17:36:16 +00:00
|
|
|
|
func f9(a, b bool) int {
|
|
|
|
|
if a {
|
|
|
|
|
return 1
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
cmd/compile: make prove pass use unsatisfiability
Currently the prove pass uses implication queries. For each block, it
collects the set of branch conditions leading to that block, and
queries this fact table for whether any of these facts imply the
block's own branch condition (or its inverse). This works remarkably
well considering it doesn't do any deduction on these facts, but it
has various downsides:
1. It requires an implementation both of adding facts to the table and
determining implications. These are very nearly duals of each
other, but require separate implementations. Likewise, the process
of asserting facts of dominating branch conditions is very nearly
the dual of the process of querying implied branch conditions.
2. It leads to less effective use of derived facts. For example, the
prove pass currently derives facts about the relations between len
and cap, but can't make use of these unless a branch condition is
in the exact form of a derived fact. If one of these derived facts
contradicts another fact, it won't notice or make use of this.
This CL changes the approach of the prove pass to instead use
*contradiction* instead of implication. Rather than ever querying a
branch condition, it simply adds branch conditions to the fact table.
If this leads to a contradiction (specifically, it makes the fact set
unsatisfiable), that branch is impossible and can be cut. As a result,
1. We can eliminate the code for determining implications
(factsTable.get disappears entirely). Also, there is now a single
implementation of visiting and asserting branch conditions, since
we don't have to flip them around to treat them as facts in one
place and queries in another.
2. Derived facts can be used effectively. It doesn't matter *why* the
fact table is unsatisfiable; a contradiction in any of the facts is
enough.
3. As an added benefit, it's now quite easy to avoid traversing beyond
provably-unreachable blocks. In contrast, the current
implementation always visits all blocks.
The prove pass already has nearly all of the mechanism necessary to
compute unsatisfiability, which means this both simplifies the code
and makes it more powerful.
The only complication is that the current implication procedure has a
hack for dealing with the 0 <= Args[0] condition of OpIsInBounds and
OpIsSliceInBounds. We replace this with asserting the appropriate fact
when we process one of these conditions. This seems much cleaner
anyway, and works because we can now take advantage of derived facts.
This has no measurable effect on compiler performance.
Effectiveness:
There is exactly one condition in all of std and cmd that this fails
to prove that the old implementation could: (int64(^uint(0)>>1) < x)
in encoding/gob. This can never be true because x is an int, and it's
basically coincidence that the old code gets this. (For example, it
fails to prove the similar (x < ^int64(^uint(0)>>1)) condition that
immediately precedes it, and even though the conditions are logically
unrelated, it wouldn't get the second one if it hadn't first processed
the first!)
It does, however, prove a few dozen additional branches. These come
from facts that are added to the fact table about the relations
between len and cap. These were almost never queried directly before,
but could lead to contradictions, which the unsat-based approach is
able to use.
There are exactly two branches in std and cmd that this implementation
proves in the *other* direction. This sounds scary, but is okay
because both occur in already-unreachable blocks, so it doesn't matter
what we chose. Because the fact table logic is sound but incomplete,
it fails to prove that the block isn't reachable, even though it is
able to prove that both outgoing branches are impossible. We could
turn these blocks into BlockExit blocks, but it doesn't seem worth the
trouble of the extra proof effort for something that happens twice in
all of std and cmd.
Tests:
This CL updates test/prove.go to change the expected messages because
it can no longer give a "reason" why it proved or disproved a
condition. It also adds a new test of a branch it couldn't prove
before.
It mostly guts test/sliceopt.go, removing everything related to slice
bounds optimizations and moving a few relevant tests to test/prove.go.
Much of this test is actually unreachable. The new prove pass figures
this out and doesn't try to prove anything about the unreachable
parts. The output on the unreachable parts is already suspect because
anything can be proved at that point, so it's really just a regression
test for an algorithm the compiler no longer uses.
This is a step toward fixing #23354. That issue is quite easy to fix
once we can use derived facts effectively.
Change-Id: Ia48a1b9ee081310579fe474e4a61857424ff8ce8
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/87478
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
2018-01-10 21:28:58 +00:00
|
|
|
|
if a || b { // ERROR "Disproved Arg$"
|
2016-03-07 17:36:16 +00:00
|
|
|
|
return 2
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return 3
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func f10(a string) int {
|
|
|
|
|
n := len(a)
|
2017-03-28 20:30:31 +00:00
|
|
|
|
// We optimize comparisons with small constant strings (see cmd/compile/internal/gc/walk.go),
|
|
|
|
|
// so this string literal must be long.
|
|
|
|
|
if a[:n>>1] == "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" {
|
2016-03-07 17:36:16 +00:00
|
|
|
|
return 0
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return 1
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func f11a(a []int, i int) {
|
|
|
|
|
useInt(a[i])
|
cmd/compile: make prove pass use unsatisfiability
Currently the prove pass uses implication queries. For each block, it
collects the set of branch conditions leading to that block, and
queries this fact table for whether any of these facts imply the
block's own branch condition (or its inverse). This works remarkably
well considering it doesn't do any deduction on these facts, but it
has various downsides:
1. It requires an implementation both of adding facts to the table and
determining implications. These are very nearly duals of each
other, but require separate implementations. Likewise, the process
of asserting facts of dominating branch conditions is very nearly
the dual of the process of querying implied branch conditions.
2. It leads to less effective use of derived facts. For example, the
prove pass currently derives facts about the relations between len
and cap, but can't make use of these unless a branch condition is
in the exact form of a derived fact. If one of these derived facts
contradicts another fact, it won't notice or make use of this.
This CL changes the approach of the prove pass to instead use
*contradiction* instead of implication. Rather than ever querying a
branch condition, it simply adds branch conditions to the fact table.
If this leads to a contradiction (specifically, it makes the fact set
unsatisfiable), that branch is impossible and can be cut. As a result,
1. We can eliminate the code for determining implications
(factsTable.get disappears entirely). Also, there is now a single
implementation of visiting and asserting branch conditions, since
we don't have to flip them around to treat them as facts in one
place and queries in another.
2. Derived facts can be used effectively. It doesn't matter *why* the
fact table is unsatisfiable; a contradiction in any of the facts is
enough.
3. As an added benefit, it's now quite easy to avoid traversing beyond
provably-unreachable blocks. In contrast, the current
implementation always visits all blocks.
The prove pass already has nearly all of the mechanism necessary to
compute unsatisfiability, which means this both simplifies the code
and makes it more powerful.
The only complication is that the current implication procedure has a
hack for dealing with the 0 <= Args[0] condition of OpIsInBounds and
OpIsSliceInBounds. We replace this with asserting the appropriate fact
when we process one of these conditions. This seems much cleaner
anyway, and works because we can now take advantage of derived facts.
This has no measurable effect on compiler performance.
Effectiveness:
There is exactly one condition in all of std and cmd that this fails
to prove that the old implementation could: (int64(^uint(0)>>1) < x)
in encoding/gob. This can never be true because x is an int, and it's
basically coincidence that the old code gets this. (For example, it
fails to prove the similar (x < ^int64(^uint(0)>>1)) condition that
immediately precedes it, and even though the conditions are logically
unrelated, it wouldn't get the second one if it hadn't first processed
the first!)
It does, however, prove a few dozen additional branches. These come
from facts that are added to the fact table about the relations
between len and cap. These were almost never queried directly before,
but could lead to contradictions, which the unsat-based approach is
able to use.
There are exactly two branches in std and cmd that this implementation
proves in the *other* direction. This sounds scary, but is okay
because both occur in already-unreachable blocks, so it doesn't matter
what we chose. Because the fact table logic is sound but incomplete,
it fails to prove that the block isn't reachable, even though it is
able to prove that both outgoing branches are impossible. We could
turn these blocks into BlockExit blocks, but it doesn't seem worth the
trouble of the extra proof effort for something that happens twice in
all of std and cmd.
Tests:
This CL updates test/prove.go to change the expected messages because
it can no longer give a "reason" why it proved or disproved a
condition. It also adds a new test of a branch it couldn't prove
before.
It mostly guts test/sliceopt.go, removing everything related to slice
bounds optimizations and moving a few relevant tests to test/prove.go.
Much of this test is actually unreachable. The new prove pass figures
this out and doesn't try to prove anything about the unreachable
parts. The output on the unreachable parts is already suspect because
anything can be proved at that point, so it's really just a regression
test for an algorithm the compiler no longer uses.
This is a step toward fixing #23354. That issue is quite easy to fix
once we can use derived facts effectively.
Change-Id: Ia48a1b9ee081310579fe474e4a61857424ff8ce8
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/87478
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
2018-01-10 21:28:58 +00:00
|
|
|
|
useInt(a[i]) // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
2016-03-07 17:36:16 +00:00
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func f11b(a []int, i int) {
|
|
|
|
|
useSlice(a[i:])
|
cmd/compile: make prove pass use unsatisfiability
Currently the prove pass uses implication queries. For each block, it
collects the set of branch conditions leading to that block, and
queries this fact table for whether any of these facts imply the
block's own branch condition (or its inverse). This works remarkably
well considering it doesn't do any deduction on these facts, but it
has various downsides:
1. It requires an implementation both of adding facts to the table and
determining implications. These are very nearly duals of each
other, but require separate implementations. Likewise, the process
of asserting facts of dominating branch conditions is very nearly
the dual of the process of querying implied branch conditions.
2. It leads to less effective use of derived facts. For example, the
prove pass currently derives facts about the relations between len
and cap, but can't make use of these unless a branch condition is
in the exact form of a derived fact. If one of these derived facts
contradicts another fact, it won't notice or make use of this.
This CL changes the approach of the prove pass to instead use
*contradiction* instead of implication. Rather than ever querying a
branch condition, it simply adds branch conditions to the fact table.
If this leads to a contradiction (specifically, it makes the fact set
unsatisfiable), that branch is impossible and can be cut. As a result,
1. We can eliminate the code for determining implications
(factsTable.get disappears entirely). Also, there is now a single
implementation of visiting and asserting branch conditions, since
we don't have to flip them around to treat them as facts in one
place and queries in another.
2. Derived facts can be used effectively. It doesn't matter *why* the
fact table is unsatisfiable; a contradiction in any of the facts is
enough.
3. As an added benefit, it's now quite easy to avoid traversing beyond
provably-unreachable blocks. In contrast, the current
implementation always visits all blocks.
The prove pass already has nearly all of the mechanism necessary to
compute unsatisfiability, which means this both simplifies the code
and makes it more powerful.
The only complication is that the current implication procedure has a
hack for dealing with the 0 <= Args[0] condition of OpIsInBounds and
OpIsSliceInBounds. We replace this with asserting the appropriate fact
when we process one of these conditions. This seems much cleaner
anyway, and works because we can now take advantage of derived facts.
This has no measurable effect on compiler performance.
Effectiveness:
There is exactly one condition in all of std and cmd that this fails
to prove that the old implementation could: (int64(^uint(0)>>1) < x)
in encoding/gob. This can never be true because x is an int, and it's
basically coincidence that the old code gets this. (For example, it
fails to prove the similar (x < ^int64(^uint(0)>>1)) condition that
immediately precedes it, and even though the conditions are logically
unrelated, it wouldn't get the second one if it hadn't first processed
the first!)
It does, however, prove a few dozen additional branches. These come
from facts that are added to the fact table about the relations
between len and cap. These were almost never queried directly before,
but could lead to contradictions, which the unsat-based approach is
able to use.
There are exactly two branches in std and cmd that this implementation
proves in the *other* direction. This sounds scary, but is okay
because both occur in already-unreachable blocks, so it doesn't matter
what we chose. Because the fact table logic is sound but incomplete,
it fails to prove that the block isn't reachable, even though it is
able to prove that both outgoing branches are impossible. We could
turn these blocks into BlockExit blocks, but it doesn't seem worth the
trouble of the extra proof effort for something that happens twice in
all of std and cmd.
Tests:
This CL updates test/prove.go to change the expected messages because
it can no longer give a "reason" why it proved or disproved a
condition. It also adds a new test of a branch it couldn't prove
before.
It mostly guts test/sliceopt.go, removing everything related to slice
bounds optimizations and moving a few relevant tests to test/prove.go.
Much of this test is actually unreachable. The new prove pass figures
this out and doesn't try to prove anything about the unreachable
parts. The output on the unreachable parts is already suspect because
anything can be proved at that point, so it's really just a regression
test for an algorithm the compiler no longer uses.
This is a step toward fixing #23354. That issue is quite easy to fix
once we can use derived facts effectively.
Change-Id: Ia48a1b9ee081310579fe474e4a61857424ff8ce8
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/87478
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
2018-01-10 21:28:58 +00:00
|
|
|
|
useSlice(a[i:]) // ERROR "Proved IsSliceInBounds$"
|
2016-03-07 17:36:16 +00:00
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func f11c(a []int, i int) {
|
|
|
|
|
useSlice(a[:i])
|
2019-03-08 23:01:32 +00:00
|
|
|
|
useSlice(a[:i]) // ERROR "Proved IsSliceInBounds$"
|
2016-03-07 17:36:16 +00:00
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func f11d(a []int, i int) {
|
|
|
|
|
useInt(a[2*i+7])
|
cmd/compile: make prove pass use unsatisfiability
Currently the prove pass uses implication queries. For each block, it
collects the set of branch conditions leading to that block, and
queries this fact table for whether any of these facts imply the
block's own branch condition (or its inverse). This works remarkably
well considering it doesn't do any deduction on these facts, but it
has various downsides:
1. It requires an implementation both of adding facts to the table and
determining implications. These are very nearly duals of each
other, but require separate implementations. Likewise, the process
of asserting facts of dominating branch conditions is very nearly
the dual of the process of querying implied branch conditions.
2. It leads to less effective use of derived facts. For example, the
prove pass currently derives facts about the relations between len
and cap, but can't make use of these unless a branch condition is
in the exact form of a derived fact. If one of these derived facts
contradicts another fact, it won't notice or make use of this.
This CL changes the approach of the prove pass to instead use
*contradiction* instead of implication. Rather than ever querying a
branch condition, it simply adds branch conditions to the fact table.
If this leads to a contradiction (specifically, it makes the fact set
unsatisfiable), that branch is impossible and can be cut. As a result,
1. We can eliminate the code for determining implications
(factsTable.get disappears entirely). Also, there is now a single
implementation of visiting and asserting branch conditions, since
we don't have to flip them around to treat them as facts in one
place and queries in another.
2. Derived facts can be used effectively. It doesn't matter *why* the
fact table is unsatisfiable; a contradiction in any of the facts is
enough.
3. As an added benefit, it's now quite easy to avoid traversing beyond
provably-unreachable blocks. In contrast, the current
implementation always visits all blocks.
The prove pass already has nearly all of the mechanism necessary to
compute unsatisfiability, which means this both simplifies the code
and makes it more powerful.
The only complication is that the current implication procedure has a
hack for dealing with the 0 <= Args[0] condition of OpIsInBounds and
OpIsSliceInBounds. We replace this with asserting the appropriate fact
when we process one of these conditions. This seems much cleaner
anyway, and works because we can now take advantage of derived facts.
This has no measurable effect on compiler performance.
Effectiveness:
There is exactly one condition in all of std and cmd that this fails
to prove that the old implementation could: (int64(^uint(0)>>1) < x)
in encoding/gob. This can never be true because x is an int, and it's
basically coincidence that the old code gets this. (For example, it
fails to prove the similar (x < ^int64(^uint(0)>>1)) condition that
immediately precedes it, and even though the conditions are logically
unrelated, it wouldn't get the second one if it hadn't first processed
the first!)
It does, however, prove a few dozen additional branches. These come
from facts that are added to the fact table about the relations
between len and cap. These were almost never queried directly before,
but could lead to contradictions, which the unsat-based approach is
able to use.
There are exactly two branches in std and cmd that this implementation
proves in the *other* direction. This sounds scary, but is okay
because both occur in already-unreachable blocks, so it doesn't matter
what we chose. Because the fact table logic is sound but incomplete,
it fails to prove that the block isn't reachable, even though it is
able to prove that both outgoing branches are impossible. We could
turn these blocks into BlockExit blocks, but it doesn't seem worth the
trouble of the extra proof effort for something that happens twice in
all of std and cmd.
Tests:
This CL updates test/prove.go to change the expected messages because
it can no longer give a "reason" why it proved or disproved a
condition. It also adds a new test of a branch it couldn't prove
before.
It mostly guts test/sliceopt.go, removing everything related to slice
bounds optimizations and moving a few relevant tests to test/prove.go.
Much of this test is actually unreachable. The new prove pass figures
this out and doesn't try to prove anything about the unreachable
parts. The output on the unreachable parts is already suspect because
anything can be proved at that point, so it's really just a regression
test for an algorithm the compiler no longer uses.
This is a step toward fixing #23354. That issue is quite easy to fix
once we can use derived facts effectively.
Change-Id: Ia48a1b9ee081310579fe474e4a61857424ff8ce8
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/87478
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
2018-01-10 21:28:58 +00:00
|
|
|
|
useInt(a[2*i+7]) // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
2016-03-07 17:36:16 +00:00
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func f12(a []int, b int) {
|
|
|
|
|
useSlice(a[:b])
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-03-23 17:20:44 +00:00
|
|
|
|
func f13a(a, b, c int, x bool) int {
|
|
|
|
|
if a > 12 {
|
|
|
|
|
if x {
|
|
|
|
|
if a < 12 { // ERROR "Disproved Less64$"
|
|
|
|
|
return 1
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
if x {
|
|
|
|
|
if a <= 12 { // ERROR "Disproved Leq64$"
|
|
|
|
|
return 2
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
if x {
|
|
|
|
|
if a == 12 { // ERROR "Disproved Eq64$"
|
|
|
|
|
return 3
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
if x {
|
2020-02-20 17:46:08 +00:00
|
|
|
|
if a >= 12 { // ERROR "Proved Leq64$"
|
2016-03-23 17:20:44 +00:00
|
|
|
|
return 4
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
if x {
|
2020-02-20 17:46:08 +00:00
|
|
|
|
if a > 12 { // ERROR "Proved Less64$"
|
2016-03-23 17:20:44 +00:00
|
|
|
|
return 5
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return 6
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return 0
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func f13b(a int, x bool) int {
|
|
|
|
|
if a == -9 {
|
|
|
|
|
if x {
|
|
|
|
|
if a < -9 { // ERROR "Disproved Less64$"
|
|
|
|
|
return 7
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
if x {
|
|
|
|
|
if a <= -9 { // ERROR "Proved Leq64$"
|
|
|
|
|
return 8
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
if x {
|
cmd/compile: make prove pass use unsatisfiability
Currently the prove pass uses implication queries. For each block, it
collects the set of branch conditions leading to that block, and
queries this fact table for whether any of these facts imply the
block's own branch condition (or its inverse). This works remarkably
well considering it doesn't do any deduction on these facts, but it
has various downsides:
1. It requires an implementation both of adding facts to the table and
determining implications. These are very nearly duals of each
other, but require separate implementations. Likewise, the process
of asserting facts of dominating branch conditions is very nearly
the dual of the process of querying implied branch conditions.
2. It leads to less effective use of derived facts. For example, the
prove pass currently derives facts about the relations between len
and cap, but can't make use of these unless a branch condition is
in the exact form of a derived fact. If one of these derived facts
contradicts another fact, it won't notice or make use of this.
This CL changes the approach of the prove pass to instead use
*contradiction* instead of implication. Rather than ever querying a
branch condition, it simply adds branch conditions to the fact table.
If this leads to a contradiction (specifically, it makes the fact set
unsatisfiable), that branch is impossible and can be cut. As a result,
1. We can eliminate the code for determining implications
(factsTable.get disappears entirely). Also, there is now a single
implementation of visiting and asserting branch conditions, since
we don't have to flip them around to treat them as facts in one
place and queries in another.
2. Derived facts can be used effectively. It doesn't matter *why* the
fact table is unsatisfiable; a contradiction in any of the facts is
enough.
3. As an added benefit, it's now quite easy to avoid traversing beyond
provably-unreachable blocks. In contrast, the current
implementation always visits all blocks.
The prove pass already has nearly all of the mechanism necessary to
compute unsatisfiability, which means this both simplifies the code
and makes it more powerful.
The only complication is that the current implication procedure has a
hack for dealing with the 0 <= Args[0] condition of OpIsInBounds and
OpIsSliceInBounds. We replace this with asserting the appropriate fact
when we process one of these conditions. This seems much cleaner
anyway, and works because we can now take advantage of derived facts.
This has no measurable effect on compiler performance.
Effectiveness:
There is exactly one condition in all of std and cmd that this fails
to prove that the old implementation could: (int64(^uint(0)>>1) < x)
in encoding/gob. This can never be true because x is an int, and it's
basically coincidence that the old code gets this. (For example, it
fails to prove the similar (x < ^int64(^uint(0)>>1)) condition that
immediately precedes it, and even though the conditions are logically
unrelated, it wouldn't get the second one if it hadn't first processed
the first!)
It does, however, prove a few dozen additional branches. These come
from facts that are added to the fact table about the relations
between len and cap. These were almost never queried directly before,
but could lead to contradictions, which the unsat-based approach is
able to use.
There are exactly two branches in std and cmd that this implementation
proves in the *other* direction. This sounds scary, but is okay
because both occur in already-unreachable blocks, so it doesn't matter
what we chose. Because the fact table logic is sound but incomplete,
it fails to prove that the block isn't reachable, even though it is
able to prove that both outgoing branches are impossible. We could
turn these blocks into BlockExit blocks, but it doesn't seem worth the
trouble of the extra proof effort for something that happens twice in
all of std and cmd.
Tests:
This CL updates test/prove.go to change the expected messages because
it can no longer give a "reason" why it proved or disproved a
condition. It also adds a new test of a branch it couldn't prove
before.
It mostly guts test/sliceopt.go, removing everything related to slice
bounds optimizations and moving a few relevant tests to test/prove.go.
Much of this test is actually unreachable. The new prove pass figures
this out and doesn't try to prove anything about the unreachable
parts. The output on the unreachable parts is already suspect because
anything can be proved at that point, so it's really just a regression
test for an algorithm the compiler no longer uses.
This is a step toward fixing #23354. That issue is quite easy to fix
once we can use derived facts effectively.
Change-Id: Ia48a1b9ee081310579fe474e4a61857424ff8ce8
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/87478
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
2018-01-10 21:28:58 +00:00
|
|
|
|
if a == -9 { // ERROR "Proved Eq64$"
|
2016-03-23 17:20:44 +00:00
|
|
|
|
return 9
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
if x {
|
2020-02-20 17:46:08 +00:00
|
|
|
|
if a >= -9 { // ERROR "Proved Leq64$"
|
2016-03-23 17:20:44 +00:00
|
|
|
|
return 10
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
if x {
|
2020-02-20 17:46:08 +00:00
|
|
|
|
if a > -9 { // ERROR "Disproved Less64$"
|
2016-03-23 17:20:44 +00:00
|
|
|
|
return 11
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return 12
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return 0
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func f13c(a int, x bool) int {
|
|
|
|
|
if a < 90 {
|
|
|
|
|
if x {
|
cmd/compile: make prove pass use unsatisfiability
Currently the prove pass uses implication queries. For each block, it
collects the set of branch conditions leading to that block, and
queries this fact table for whether any of these facts imply the
block's own branch condition (or its inverse). This works remarkably
well considering it doesn't do any deduction on these facts, but it
has various downsides:
1. It requires an implementation both of adding facts to the table and
determining implications. These are very nearly duals of each
other, but require separate implementations. Likewise, the process
of asserting facts of dominating branch conditions is very nearly
the dual of the process of querying implied branch conditions.
2. It leads to less effective use of derived facts. For example, the
prove pass currently derives facts about the relations between len
and cap, but can't make use of these unless a branch condition is
in the exact form of a derived fact. If one of these derived facts
contradicts another fact, it won't notice or make use of this.
This CL changes the approach of the prove pass to instead use
*contradiction* instead of implication. Rather than ever querying a
branch condition, it simply adds branch conditions to the fact table.
If this leads to a contradiction (specifically, it makes the fact set
unsatisfiable), that branch is impossible and can be cut. As a result,
1. We can eliminate the code for determining implications
(factsTable.get disappears entirely). Also, there is now a single
implementation of visiting and asserting branch conditions, since
we don't have to flip them around to treat them as facts in one
place and queries in another.
2. Derived facts can be used effectively. It doesn't matter *why* the
fact table is unsatisfiable; a contradiction in any of the facts is
enough.
3. As an added benefit, it's now quite easy to avoid traversing beyond
provably-unreachable blocks. In contrast, the current
implementation always visits all blocks.
The prove pass already has nearly all of the mechanism necessary to
compute unsatisfiability, which means this both simplifies the code
and makes it more powerful.
The only complication is that the current implication procedure has a
hack for dealing with the 0 <= Args[0] condition of OpIsInBounds and
OpIsSliceInBounds. We replace this with asserting the appropriate fact
when we process one of these conditions. This seems much cleaner
anyway, and works because we can now take advantage of derived facts.
This has no measurable effect on compiler performance.
Effectiveness:
There is exactly one condition in all of std and cmd that this fails
to prove that the old implementation could: (int64(^uint(0)>>1) < x)
in encoding/gob. This can never be true because x is an int, and it's
basically coincidence that the old code gets this. (For example, it
fails to prove the similar (x < ^int64(^uint(0)>>1)) condition that
immediately precedes it, and even though the conditions are logically
unrelated, it wouldn't get the second one if it hadn't first processed
the first!)
It does, however, prove a few dozen additional branches. These come
from facts that are added to the fact table about the relations
between len and cap. These were almost never queried directly before,
but could lead to contradictions, which the unsat-based approach is
able to use.
There are exactly two branches in std and cmd that this implementation
proves in the *other* direction. This sounds scary, but is okay
because both occur in already-unreachable blocks, so it doesn't matter
what we chose. Because the fact table logic is sound but incomplete,
it fails to prove that the block isn't reachable, even though it is
able to prove that both outgoing branches are impossible. We could
turn these blocks into BlockExit blocks, but it doesn't seem worth the
trouble of the extra proof effort for something that happens twice in
all of std and cmd.
Tests:
This CL updates test/prove.go to change the expected messages because
it can no longer give a "reason" why it proved or disproved a
condition. It also adds a new test of a branch it couldn't prove
before.
It mostly guts test/sliceopt.go, removing everything related to slice
bounds optimizations and moving a few relevant tests to test/prove.go.
Much of this test is actually unreachable. The new prove pass figures
this out and doesn't try to prove anything about the unreachable
parts. The output on the unreachable parts is already suspect because
anything can be proved at that point, so it's really just a regression
test for an algorithm the compiler no longer uses.
This is a step toward fixing #23354. That issue is quite easy to fix
once we can use derived facts effectively.
Change-Id: Ia48a1b9ee081310579fe474e4a61857424ff8ce8
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/87478
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
2018-01-10 21:28:58 +00:00
|
|
|
|
if a < 90 { // ERROR "Proved Less64$"
|
2016-03-23 17:20:44 +00:00
|
|
|
|
return 13
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
if x {
|
|
|
|
|
if a <= 90 { // ERROR "Proved Leq64$"
|
|
|
|
|
return 14
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
if x {
|
|
|
|
|
if a == 90 { // ERROR "Disproved Eq64$"
|
|
|
|
|
return 15
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
if x {
|
2020-02-20 17:46:08 +00:00
|
|
|
|
if a >= 90 { // ERROR "Disproved Leq64$"
|
2016-03-23 17:20:44 +00:00
|
|
|
|
return 16
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
if x {
|
2020-02-20 17:46:08 +00:00
|
|
|
|
if a > 90 { // ERROR "Disproved Less64$"
|
2016-03-23 17:20:44 +00:00
|
|
|
|
return 17
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return 18
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return 0
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func f13d(a int) int {
|
|
|
|
|
if a < 5 {
|
|
|
|
|
if a < 9 { // ERROR "Proved Less64$"
|
|
|
|
|
return 1
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return 0
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func f13e(a int) int {
|
|
|
|
|
if a > 9 {
|
2020-02-20 17:46:08 +00:00
|
|
|
|
if a > 5 { // ERROR "Proved Less64$"
|
2016-03-23 17:20:44 +00:00
|
|
|
|
return 1
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return 0
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func f13f(a int64) int64 {
|
|
|
|
|
if a > math.MaxInt64 {
|
2018-04-15 21:53:08 +00:00
|
|
|
|
if a == 0 { // ERROR "Disproved Eq64$"
|
2016-03-23 17:20:44 +00:00
|
|
|
|
return 1
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return 0
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func f13g(a int) int {
|
|
|
|
|
if a < 3 {
|
|
|
|
|
return 5
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
if a > 3 {
|
|
|
|
|
return 6
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
if a == 3 { // ERROR "Proved Eq64$"
|
|
|
|
|
return 7
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return 8
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func f13h(a int) int {
|
|
|
|
|
if a < 3 {
|
|
|
|
|
if a > 1 {
|
|
|
|
|
if a == 2 { // ERROR "Proved Eq64$"
|
|
|
|
|
return 5
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return 0
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func f13i(a uint) int {
|
|
|
|
|
if a == 0 {
|
|
|
|
|
return 1
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-02-20 17:46:08 +00:00
|
|
|
|
if a > 0 { // ERROR "Proved Less64U$"
|
2016-03-23 17:20:44 +00:00
|
|
|
|
return 2
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return 3
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-11-27 18:41:37 +00:00
|
|
|
|
func f14(p, q *int, a []int) {
|
|
|
|
|
// This crazy ordering usually gives i1 the lowest value ID,
|
|
|
|
|
// j the middle value ID, and i2 the highest value ID.
|
|
|
|
|
// That used to confuse CSE because it ordered the args
|
|
|
|
|
// of the two + ops below differently.
|
|
|
|
|
// That in turn foiled bounds check elimination.
|
|
|
|
|
i1 := *p
|
|
|
|
|
j := *q
|
|
|
|
|
i2 := *p
|
|
|
|
|
useInt(a[i1+j])
|
cmd/compile: make prove pass use unsatisfiability
Currently the prove pass uses implication queries. For each block, it
collects the set of branch conditions leading to that block, and
queries this fact table for whether any of these facts imply the
block's own branch condition (or its inverse). This works remarkably
well considering it doesn't do any deduction on these facts, but it
has various downsides:
1. It requires an implementation both of adding facts to the table and
determining implications. These are very nearly duals of each
other, but require separate implementations. Likewise, the process
of asserting facts of dominating branch conditions is very nearly
the dual of the process of querying implied branch conditions.
2. It leads to less effective use of derived facts. For example, the
prove pass currently derives facts about the relations between len
and cap, but can't make use of these unless a branch condition is
in the exact form of a derived fact. If one of these derived facts
contradicts another fact, it won't notice or make use of this.
This CL changes the approach of the prove pass to instead use
*contradiction* instead of implication. Rather than ever querying a
branch condition, it simply adds branch conditions to the fact table.
If this leads to a contradiction (specifically, it makes the fact set
unsatisfiable), that branch is impossible and can be cut. As a result,
1. We can eliminate the code for determining implications
(factsTable.get disappears entirely). Also, there is now a single
implementation of visiting and asserting branch conditions, since
we don't have to flip them around to treat them as facts in one
place and queries in another.
2. Derived facts can be used effectively. It doesn't matter *why* the
fact table is unsatisfiable; a contradiction in any of the facts is
enough.
3. As an added benefit, it's now quite easy to avoid traversing beyond
provably-unreachable blocks. In contrast, the current
implementation always visits all blocks.
The prove pass already has nearly all of the mechanism necessary to
compute unsatisfiability, which means this both simplifies the code
and makes it more powerful.
The only complication is that the current implication procedure has a
hack for dealing with the 0 <= Args[0] condition of OpIsInBounds and
OpIsSliceInBounds. We replace this with asserting the appropriate fact
when we process one of these conditions. This seems much cleaner
anyway, and works because we can now take advantage of derived facts.
This has no measurable effect on compiler performance.
Effectiveness:
There is exactly one condition in all of std and cmd that this fails
to prove that the old implementation could: (int64(^uint(0)>>1) < x)
in encoding/gob. This can never be true because x is an int, and it's
basically coincidence that the old code gets this. (For example, it
fails to prove the similar (x < ^int64(^uint(0)>>1)) condition that
immediately precedes it, and even though the conditions are logically
unrelated, it wouldn't get the second one if it hadn't first processed
the first!)
It does, however, prove a few dozen additional branches. These come
from facts that are added to the fact table about the relations
between len and cap. These were almost never queried directly before,
but could lead to contradictions, which the unsat-based approach is
able to use.
There are exactly two branches in std and cmd that this implementation
proves in the *other* direction. This sounds scary, but is okay
because both occur in already-unreachable blocks, so it doesn't matter
what we chose. Because the fact table logic is sound but incomplete,
it fails to prove that the block isn't reachable, even though it is
able to prove that both outgoing branches are impossible. We could
turn these blocks into BlockExit blocks, but it doesn't seem worth the
trouble of the extra proof effort for something that happens twice in
all of std and cmd.
Tests:
This CL updates test/prove.go to change the expected messages because
it can no longer give a "reason" why it proved or disproved a
condition. It also adds a new test of a branch it couldn't prove
before.
It mostly guts test/sliceopt.go, removing everything related to slice
bounds optimizations and moving a few relevant tests to test/prove.go.
Much of this test is actually unreachable. The new prove pass figures
this out and doesn't try to prove anything about the unreachable
parts. The output on the unreachable parts is already suspect because
anything can be proved at that point, so it's really just a regression
test for an algorithm the compiler no longer uses.
This is a step toward fixing #23354. That issue is quite easy to fix
once we can use derived facts effectively.
Change-Id: Ia48a1b9ee081310579fe474e4a61857424ff8ce8
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/87478
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
2018-01-10 21:28:58 +00:00
|
|
|
|
useInt(a[i2+j]) // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
2016-11-27 18:41:37 +00:00
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-11-27 19:43:08 +00:00
|
|
|
|
func f15(s []int, x int) {
|
|
|
|
|
useSlice(s[x:])
|
|
|
|
|
useSlice(s[:x]) // ERROR "Proved IsSliceInBounds$"
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func f16(s []int) []int {
|
|
|
|
|
if len(s) >= 10 {
|
cmd/compile: make prove pass use unsatisfiability
Currently the prove pass uses implication queries. For each block, it
collects the set of branch conditions leading to that block, and
queries this fact table for whether any of these facts imply the
block's own branch condition (or its inverse). This works remarkably
well considering it doesn't do any deduction on these facts, but it
has various downsides:
1. It requires an implementation both of adding facts to the table and
determining implications. These are very nearly duals of each
other, but require separate implementations. Likewise, the process
of asserting facts of dominating branch conditions is very nearly
the dual of the process of querying implied branch conditions.
2. It leads to less effective use of derived facts. For example, the
prove pass currently derives facts about the relations between len
and cap, but can't make use of these unless a branch condition is
in the exact form of a derived fact. If one of these derived facts
contradicts another fact, it won't notice or make use of this.
This CL changes the approach of the prove pass to instead use
*contradiction* instead of implication. Rather than ever querying a
branch condition, it simply adds branch conditions to the fact table.
If this leads to a contradiction (specifically, it makes the fact set
unsatisfiable), that branch is impossible and can be cut. As a result,
1. We can eliminate the code for determining implications
(factsTable.get disappears entirely). Also, there is now a single
implementation of visiting and asserting branch conditions, since
we don't have to flip them around to treat them as facts in one
place and queries in another.
2. Derived facts can be used effectively. It doesn't matter *why* the
fact table is unsatisfiable; a contradiction in any of the facts is
enough.
3. As an added benefit, it's now quite easy to avoid traversing beyond
provably-unreachable blocks. In contrast, the current
implementation always visits all blocks.
The prove pass already has nearly all of the mechanism necessary to
compute unsatisfiability, which means this both simplifies the code
and makes it more powerful.
The only complication is that the current implication procedure has a
hack for dealing with the 0 <= Args[0] condition of OpIsInBounds and
OpIsSliceInBounds. We replace this with asserting the appropriate fact
when we process one of these conditions. This seems much cleaner
anyway, and works because we can now take advantage of derived facts.
This has no measurable effect on compiler performance.
Effectiveness:
There is exactly one condition in all of std and cmd that this fails
to prove that the old implementation could: (int64(^uint(0)>>1) < x)
in encoding/gob. This can never be true because x is an int, and it's
basically coincidence that the old code gets this. (For example, it
fails to prove the similar (x < ^int64(^uint(0)>>1)) condition that
immediately precedes it, and even though the conditions are logically
unrelated, it wouldn't get the second one if it hadn't first processed
the first!)
It does, however, prove a few dozen additional branches. These come
from facts that are added to the fact table about the relations
between len and cap. These were almost never queried directly before,
but could lead to contradictions, which the unsat-based approach is
able to use.
There are exactly two branches in std and cmd that this implementation
proves in the *other* direction. This sounds scary, but is okay
because both occur in already-unreachable blocks, so it doesn't matter
what we chose. Because the fact table logic is sound but incomplete,
it fails to prove that the block isn't reachable, even though it is
able to prove that both outgoing branches are impossible. We could
turn these blocks into BlockExit blocks, but it doesn't seem worth the
trouble of the extra proof effort for something that happens twice in
all of std and cmd.
Tests:
This CL updates test/prove.go to change the expected messages because
it can no longer give a "reason" why it proved or disproved a
condition. It also adds a new test of a branch it couldn't prove
before.
It mostly guts test/sliceopt.go, removing everything related to slice
bounds optimizations and moving a few relevant tests to test/prove.go.
Much of this test is actually unreachable. The new prove pass figures
this out and doesn't try to prove anything about the unreachable
parts. The output on the unreachable parts is already suspect because
anything can be proved at that point, so it's really just a regression
test for an algorithm the compiler no longer uses.
This is a step toward fixing #23354. That issue is quite easy to fix
once we can use derived facts effectively.
Change-Id: Ia48a1b9ee081310579fe474e4a61857424ff8ce8
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/87478
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
2018-01-10 21:28:58 +00:00
|
|
|
|
return s[:10] // ERROR "Proved IsSliceInBounds$"
|
2016-11-27 19:43:08 +00:00
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return nil
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
cmd/compile: make prove pass use unsatisfiability
Currently the prove pass uses implication queries. For each block, it
collects the set of branch conditions leading to that block, and
queries this fact table for whether any of these facts imply the
block's own branch condition (or its inverse). This works remarkably
well considering it doesn't do any deduction on these facts, but it
has various downsides:
1. It requires an implementation both of adding facts to the table and
determining implications. These are very nearly duals of each
other, but require separate implementations. Likewise, the process
of asserting facts of dominating branch conditions is very nearly
the dual of the process of querying implied branch conditions.
2. It leads to less effective use of derived facts. For example, the
prove pass currently derives facts about the relations between len
and cap, but can't make use of these unless a branch condition is
in the exact form of a derived fact. If one of these derived facts
contradicts another fact, it won't notice or make use of this.
This CL changes the approach of the prove pass to instead use
*contradiction* instead of implication. Rather than ever querying a
branch condition, it simply adds branch conditions to the fact table.
If this leads to a contradiction (specifically, it makes the fact set
unsatisfiable), that branch is impossible and can be cut. As a result,
1. We can eliminate the code for determining implications
(factsTable.get disappears entirely). Also, there is now a single
implementation of visiting and asserting branch conditions, since
we don't have to flip them around to treat them as facts in one
place and queries in another.
2. Derived facts can be used effectively. It doesn't matter *why* the
fact table is unsatisfiable; a contradiction in any of the facts is
enough.
3. As an added benefit, it's now quite easy to avoid traversing beyond
provably-unreachable blocks. In contrast, the current
implementation always visits all blocks.
The prove pass already has nearly all of the mechanism necessary to
compute unsatisfiability, which means this both simplifies the code
and makes it more powerful.
The only complication is that the current implication procedure has a
hack for dealing with the 0 <= Args[0] condition of OpIsInBounds and
OpIsSliceInBounds. We replace this with asserting the appropriate fact
when we process one of these conditions. This seems much cleaner
anyway, and works because we can now take advantage of derived facts.
This has no measurable effect on compiler performance.
Effectiveness:
There is exactly one condition in all of std and cmd that this fails
to prove that the old implementation could: (int64(^uint(0)>>1) < x)
in encoding/gob. This can never be true because x is an int, and it's
basically coincidence that the old code gets this. (For example, it
fails to prove the similar (x < ^int64(^uint(0)>>1)) condition that
immediately precedes it, and even though the conditions are logically
unrelated, it wouldn't get the second one if it hadn't first processed
the first!)
It does, however, prove a few dozen additional branches. These come
from facts that are added to the fact table about the relations
between len and cap. These were almost never queried directly before,
but could lead to contradictions, which the unsat-based approach is
able to use.
There are exactly two branches in std and cmd that this implementation
proves in the *other* direction. This sounds scary, but is okay
because both occur in already-unreachable blocks, so it doesn't matter
what we chose. Because the fact table logic is sound but incomplete,
it fails to prove that the block isn't reachable, even though it is
able to prove that both outgoing branches are impossible. We could
turn these blocks into BlockExit blocks, but it doesn't seem worth the
trouble of the extra proof effort for something that happens twice in
all of std and cmd.
Tests:
This CL updates test/prove.go to change the expected messages because
it can no longer give a "reason" why it proved or disproved a
condition. It also adds a new test of a branch it couldn't prove
before.
It mostly guts test/sliceopt.go, removing everything related to slice
bounds optimizations and moving a few relevant tests to test/prove.go.
Much of this test is actually unreachable. The new prove pass figures
this out and doesn't try to prove anything about the unreachable
parts. The output on the unreachable parts is already suspect because
anything can be proved at that point, so it's really just a regression
test for an algorithm the compiler no longer uses.
This is a step toward fixing #23354. That issue is quite easy to fix
once we can use derived facts effectively.
Change-Id: Ia48a1b9ee081310579fe474e4a61857424ff8ce8
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/87478
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
2018-01-10 21:28:58 +00:00
|
|
|
|
func f17(b []int) {
|
2018-12-04 15:00:16 +00:00
|
|
|
|
for i := 0; i < len(b); i++ { // ERROR "Induction variable: limits \[0,\?\), increment 1$"
|
cmd/compile: make prove pass use unsatisfiability
Currently the prove pass uses implication queries. For each block, it
collects the set of branch conditions leading to that block, and
queries this fact table for whether any of these facts imply the
block's own branch condition (or its inverse). This works remarkably
well considering it doesn't do any deduction on these facts, but it
has various downsides:
1. It requires an implementation both of adding facts to the table and
determining implications. These are very nearly duals of each
other, but require separate implementations. Likewise, the process
of asserting facts of dominating branch conditions is very nearly
the dual of the process of querying implied branch conditions.
2. It leads to less effective use of derived facts. For example, the
prove pass currently derives facts about the relations between len
and cap, but can't make use of these unless a branch condition is
in the exact form of a derived fact. If one of these derived facts
contradicts another fact, it won't notice or make use of this.
This CL changes the approach of the prove pass to instead use
*contradiction* instead of implication. Rather than ever querying a
branch condition, it simply adds branch conditions to the fact table.
If this leads to a contradiction (specifically, it makes the fact set
unsatisfiable), that branch is impossible and can be cut. As a result,
1. We can eliminate the code for determining implications
(factsTable.get disappears entirely). Also, there is now a single
implementation of visiting and asserting branch conditions, since
we don't have to flip them around to treat them as facts in one
place and queries in another.
2. Derived facts can be used effectively. It doesn't matter *why* the
fact table is unsatisfiable; a contradiction in any of the facts is
enough.
3. As an added benefit, it's now quite easy to avoid traversing beyond
provably-unreachable blocks. In contrast, the current
implementation always visits all blocks.
The prove pass already has nearly all of the mechanism necessary to
compute unsatisfiability, which means this both simplifies the code
and makes it more powerful.
The only complication is that the current implication procedure has a
hack for dealing with the 0 <= Args[0] condition of OpIsInBounds and
OpIsSliceInBounds. We replace this with asserting the appropriate fact
when we process one of these conditions. This seems much cleaner
anyway, and works because we can now take advantage of derived facts.
This has no measurable effect on compiler performance.
Effectiveness:
There is exactly one condition in all of std and cmd that this fails
to prove that the old implementation could: (int64(^uint(0)>>1) < x)
in encoding/gob. This can never be true because x is an int, and it's
basically coincidence that the old code gets this. (For example, it
fails to prove the similar (x < ^int64(^uint(0)>>1)) condition that
immediately precedes it, and even though the conditions are logically
unrelated, it wouldn't get the second one if it hadn't first processed
the first!)
It does, however, prove a few dozen additional branches. These come
from facts that are added to the fact table about the relations
between len and cap. These were almost never queried directly before,
but could lead to contradictions, which the unsat-based approach is
able to use.
There are exactly two branches in std and cmd that this implementation
proves in the *other* direction. This sounds scary, but is okay
because both occur in already-unreachable blocks, so it doesn't matter
what we chose. Because the fact table logic is sound but incomplete,
it fails to prove that the block isn't reachable, even though it is
able to prove that both outgoing branches are impossible. We could
turn these blocks into BlockExit blocks, but it doesn't seem worth the
trouble of the extra proof effort for something that happens twice in
all of std and cmd.
Tests:
This CL updates test/prove.go to change the expected messages because
it can no longer give a "reason" why it proved or disproved a
condition. It also adds a new test of a branch it couldn't prove
before.
It mostly guts test/sliceopt.go, removing everything related to slice
bounds optimizations and moving a few relevant tests to test/prove.go.
Much of this test is actually unreachable. The new prove pass figures
this out and doesn't try to prove anything about the unreachable
parts. The output on the unreachable parts is already suspect because
anything can be proved at that point, so it's really just a regression
test for an algorithm the compiler no longer uses.
This is a step toward fixing #23354. That issue is quite easy to fix
once we can use derived facts effectively.
Change-Id: Ia48a1b9ee081310579fe474e4a61857424ff8ce8
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/87478
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
2018-01-10 21:28:58 +00:00
|
|
|
|
// This tests for i <= cap, which we can only prove
|
|
|
|
|
// using the derived relation between len and cap.
|
|
|
|
|
// This depends on finding the contradiction, since we
|
|
|
|
|
// don't query this condition directly.
|
2019-03-08 23:01:32 +00:00
|
|
|
|
useSlice(b[:i]) // ERROR "Proved IsSliceInBounds$"
|
cmd/compile: make prove pass use unsatisfiability
Currently the prove pass uses implication queries. For each block, it
collects the set of branch conditions leading to that block, and
queries this fact table for whether any of these facts imply the
block's own branch condition (or its inverse). This works remarkably
well considering it doesn't do any deduction on these facts, but it
has various downsides:
1. It requires an implementation both of adding facts to the table and
determining implications. These are very nearly duals of each
other, but require separate implementations. Likewise, the process
of asserting facts of dominating branch conditions is very nearly
the dual of the process of querying implied branch conditions.
2. It leads to less effective use of derived facts. For example, the
prove pass currently derives facts about the relations between len
and cap, but can't make use of these unless a branch condition is
in the exact form of a derived fact. If one of these derived facts
contradicts another fact, it won't notice or make use of this.
This CL changes the approach of the prove pass to instead use
*contradiction* instead of implication. Rather than ever querying a
branch condition, it simply adds branch conditions to the fact table.
If this leads to a contradiction (specifically, it makes the fact set
unsatisfiable), that branch is impossible and can be cut. As a result,
1. We can eliminate the code for determining implications
(factsTable.get disappears entirely). Also, there is now a single
implementation of visiting and asserting branch conditions, since
we don't have to flip them around to treat them as facts in one
place and queries in another.
2. Derived facts can be used effectively. It doesn't matter *why* the
fact table is unsatisfiable; a contradiction in any of the facts is
enough.
3. As an added benefit, it's now quite easy to avoid traversing beyond
provably-unreachable blocks. In contrast, the current
implementation always visits all blocks.
The prove pass already has nearly all of the mechanism necessary to
compute unsatisfiability, which means this both simplifies the code
and makes it more powerful.
The only complication is that the current implication procedure has a
hack for dealing with the 0 <= Args[0] condition of OpIsInBounds and
OpIsSliceInBounds. We replace this with asserting the appropriate fact
when we process one of these conditions. This seems much cleaner
anyway, and works because we can now take advantage of derived facts.
This has no measurable effect on compiler performance.
Effectiveness:
There is exactly one condition in all of std and cmd that this fails
to prove that the old implementation could: (int64(^uint(0)>>1) < x)
in encoding/gob. This can never be true because x is an int, and it's
basically coincidence that the old code gets this. (For example, it
fails to prove the similar (x < ^int64(^uint(0)>>1)) condition that
immediately precedes it, and even though the conditions are logically
unrelated, it wouldn't get the second one if it hadn't first processed
the first!)
It does, however, prove a few dozen additional branches. These come
from facts that are added to the fact table about the relations
between len and cap. These were almost never queried directly before,
but could lead to contradictions, which the unsat-based approach is
able to use.
There are exactly two branches in std and cmd that this implementation
proves in the *other* direction. This sounds scary, but is okay
because both occur in already-unreachable blocks, so it doesn't matter
what we chose. Because the fact table logic is sound but incomplete,
it fails to prove that the block isn't reachable, even though it is
able to prove that both outgoing branches are impossible. We could
turn these blocks into BlockExit blocks, but it doesn't seem worth the
trouble of the extra proof effort for something that happens twice in
all of std and cmd.
Tests:
This CL updates test/prove.go to change the expected messages because
it can no longer give a "reason" why it proved or disproved a
condition. It also adds a new test of a branch it couldn't prove
before.
It mostly guts test/sliceopt.go, removing everything related to slice
bounds optimizations and moving a few relevant tests to test/prove.go.
Much of this test is actually unreachable. The new prove pass figures
this out and doesn't try to prove anything about the unreachable
parts. The output on the unreachable parts is already suspect because
anything can be proved at that point, so it's really just a regression
test for an algorithm the compiler no longer uses.
This is a step toward fixing #23354. That issue is quite easy to fix
once we can use derived facts effectively.
Change-Id: Ia48a1b9ee081310579fe474e4a61857424ff8ce8
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/87478
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
2018-01-10 21:28:58 +00:00
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-04-03 16:58:01 +00:00
|
|
|
|
func f18(b []int, x int, y uint) {
|
|
|
|
|
_ = b[x]
|
|
|
|
|
_ = b[y]
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-02-20 17:46:08 +00:00
|
|
|
|
if x > len(b) { // ERROR "Disproved Less64$"
|
2018-04-03 16:58:01 +00:00
|
|
|
|
return
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-02-20 17:46:08 +00:00
|
|
|
|
if y > uint(len(b)) { // ERROR "Disproved Less64U$"
|
2018-04-03 16:58:01 +00:00
|
|
|
|
return
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-02-20 17:46:08 +00:00
|
|
|
|
if int(y) > len(b) { // ERROR "Disproved Less64$"
|
2018-04-03 16:58:01 +00:00
|
|
|
|
return
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2019-01-02 17:27:55 +00:00
|
|
|
|
func f19() (e int64, err error) {
|
|
|
|
|
// Issue 29502: slice[:0] is incorrectly disproved.
|
|
|
|
|
var stack []int64
|
|
|
|
|
stack = append(stack, 123)
|
|
|
|
|
if len(stack) > 1 {
|
|
|
|
|
panic("too many elements")
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
last := len(stack) - 1
|
|
|
|
|
e = stack[last]
|
2020-02-20 17:46:08 +00:00
|
|
|
|
// Buggy compiler prints "Disproved Leq64" for the next line.
|
2019-01-02 17:27:55 +00:00
|
|
|
|
stack = stack[:last] // ERROR "Proved IsSliceInBounds"
|
|
|
|
|
return e, nil
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
cmd/compile: make prove pass use unsatisfiability
Currently the prove pass uses implication queries. For each block, it
collects the set of branch conditions leading to that block, and
queries this fact table for whether any of these facts imply the
block's own branch condition (or its inverse). This works remarkably
well considering it doesn't do any deduction on these facts, but it
has various downsides:
1. It requires an implementation both of adding facts to the table and
determining implications. These are very nearly duals of each
other, but require separate implementations. Likewise, the process
of asserting facts of dominating branch conditions is very nearly
the dual of the process of querying implied branch conditions.
2. It leads to less effective use of derived facts. For example, the
prove pass currently derives facts about the relations between len
and cap, but can't make use of these unless a branch condition is
in the exact form of a derived fact. If one of these derived facts
contradicts another fact, it won't notice or make use of this.
This CL changes the approach of the prove pass to instead use
*contradiction* instead of implication. Rather than ever querying a
branch condition, it simply adds branch conditions to the fact table.
If this leads to a contradiction (specifically, it makes the fact set
unsatisfiable), that branch is impossible and can be cut. As a result,
1. We can eliminate the code for determining implications
(factsTable.get disappears entirely). Also, there is now a single
implementation of visiting and asserting branch conditions, since
we don't have to flip them around to treat them as facts in one
place and queries in another.
2. Derived facts can be used effectively. It doesn't matter *why* the
fact table is unsatisfiable; a contradiction in any of the facts is
enough.
3. As an added benefit, it's now quite easy to avoid traversing beyond
provably-unreachable blocks. In contrast, the current
implementation always visits all blocks.
The prove pass already has nearly all of the mechanism necessary to
compute unsatisfiability, which means this both simplifies the code
and makes it more powerful.
The only complication is that the current implication procedure has a
hack for dealing with the 0 <= Args[0] condition of OpIsInBounds and
OpIsSliceInBounds. We replace this with asserting the appropriate fact
when we process one of these conditions. This seems much cleaner
anyway, and works because we can now take advantage of derived facts.
This has no measurable effect on compiler performance.
Effectiveness:
There is exactly one condition in all of std and cmd that this fails
to prove that the old implementation could: (int64(^uint(0)>>1) < x)
in encoding/gob. This can never be true because x is an int, and it's
basically coincidence that the old code gets this. (For example, it
fails to prove the similar (x < ^int64(^uint(0)>>1)) condition that
immediately precedes it, and even though the conditions are logically
unrelated, it wouldn't get the second one if it hadn't first processed
the first!)
It does, however, prove a few dozen additional branches. These come
from facts that are added to the fact table about the relations
between len and cap. These were almost never queried directly before,
but could lead to contradictions, which the unsat-based approach is
able to use.
There are exactly two branches in std and cmd that this implementation
proves in the *other* direction. This sounds scary, but is okay
because both occur in already-unreachable blocks, so it doesn't matter
what we chose. Because the fact table logic is sound but incomplete,
it fails to prove that the block isn't reachable, even though it is
able to prove that both outgoing branches are impossible. We could
turn these blocks into BlockExit blocks, but it doesn't seem worth the
trouble of the extra proof effort for something that happens twice in
all of std and cmd.
Tests:
This CL updates test/prove.go to change the expected messages because
it can no longer give a "reason" why it proved or disproved a
condition. It also adds a new test of a branch it couldn't prove
before.
It mostly guts test/sliceopt.go, removing everything related to slice
bounds optimizations and moving a few relevant tests to test/prove.go.
Much of this test is actually unreachable. The new prove pass figures
this out and doesn't try to prove anything about the unreachable
parts. The output on the unreachable parts is already suspect because
anything can be proved at that point, so it's really just a regression
test for an algorithm the compiler no longer uses.
This is a step toward fixing #23354. That issue is quite easy to fix
once we can use derived facts effectively.
Change-Id: Ia48a1b9ee081310579fe474e4a61857424ff8ce8
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/87478
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
2018-01-10 21:28:58 +00:00
|
|
|
|
func sm1(b []int, x int) {
|
|
|
|
|
// Test constant argument to slicemask.
|
|
|
|
|
useSlice(b[2:8]) // ERROR "Proved slicemask not needed$"
|
|
|
|
|
// Test non-constant argument with known limits.
|
2018-01-11 19:23:01 +00:00
|
|
|
|
if cap(b) > 10 {
|
2019-09-30 15:12:29 +00:00
|
|
|
|
useSlice(b[2:])
|
cmd/compile: make prove pass use unsatisfiability
Currently the prove pass uses implication queries. For each block, it
collects the set of branch conditions leading to that block, and
queries this fact table for whether any of these facts imply the
block's own branch condition (or its inverse). This works remarkably
well considering it doesn't do any deduction on these facts, but it
has various downsides:
1. It requires an implementation both of adding facts to the table and
determining implications. These are very nearly duals of each
other, but require separate implementations. Likewise, the process
of asserting facts of dominating branch conditions is very nearly
the dual of the process of querying implied branch conditions.
2. It leads to less effective use of derived facts. For example, the
prove pass currently derives facts about the relations between len
and cap, but can't make use of these unless a branch condition is
in the exact form of a derived fact. If one of these derived facts
contradicts another fact, it won't notice or make use of this.
This CL changes the approach of the prove pass to instead use
*contradiction* instead of implication. Rather than ever querying a
branch condition, it simply adds branch conditions to the fact table.
If this leads to a contradiction (specifically, it makes the fact set
unsatisfiable), that branch is impossible and can be cut. As a result,
1. We can eliminate the code for determining implications
(factsTable.get disappears entirely). Also, there is now a single
implementation of visiting and asserting branch conditions, since
we don't have to flip them around to treat them as facts in one
place and queries in another.
2. Derived facts can be used effectively. It doesn't matter *why* the
fact table is unsatisfiable; a contradiction in any of the facts is
enough.
3. As an added benefit, it's now quite easy to avoid traversing beyond
provably-unreachable blocks. In contrast, the current
implementation always visits all blocks.
The prove pass already has nearly all of the mechanism necessary to
compute unsatisfiability, which means this both simplifies the code
and makes it more powerful.
The only complication is that the current implication procedure has a
hack for dealing with the 0 <= Args[0] condition of OpIsInBounds and
OpIsSliceInBounds. We replace this with asserting the appropriate fact
when we process one of these conditions. This seems much cleaner
anyway, and works because we can now take advantage of derived facts.
This has no measurable effect on compiler performance.
Effectiveness:
There is exactly one condition in all of std and cmd that this fails
to prove that the old implementation could: (int64(^uint(0)>>1) < x)
in encoding/gob. This can never be true because x is an int, and it's
basically coincidence that the old code gets this. (For example, it
fails to prove the similar (x < ^int64(^uint(0)>>1)) condition that
immediately precedes it, and even though the conditions are logically
unrelated, it wouldn't get the second one if it hadn't first processed
the first!)
It does, however, prove a few dozen additional branches. These come
from facts that are added to the fact table about the relations
between len and cap. These were almost never queried directly before,
but could lead to contradictions, which the unsat-based approach is
able to use.
There are exactly two branches in std and cmd that this implementation
proves in the *other* direction. This sounds scary, but is okay
because both occur in already-unreachable blocks, so it doesn't matter
what we chose. Because the fact table logic is sound but incomplete,
it fails to prove that the block isn't reachable, even though it is
able to prove that both outgoing branches are impossible. We could
turn these blocks into BlockExit blocks, but it doesn't seem worth the
trouble of the extra proof effort for something that happens twice in
all of std and cmd.
Tests:
This CL updates test/prove.go to change the expected messages because
it can no longer give a "reason" why it proved or disproved a
condition. It also adds a new test of a branch it couldn't prove
before.
It mostly guts test/sliceopt.go, removing everything related to slice
bounds optimizations and moving a few relevant tests to test/prove.go.
Much of this test is actually unreachable. The new prove pass figures
this out and doesn't try to prove anything about the unreachable
parts. The output on the unreachable parts is already suspect because
anything can be proved at that point, so it's really just a regression
test for an algorithm the compiler no longer uses.
This is a step toward fixing #23354. That issue is quite easy to fix
once we can use derived facts effectively.
Change-Id: Ia48a1b9ee081310579fe474e4a61857424ff8ce8
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/87478
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
2018-01-10 21:28:58 +00:00
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-01-11 19:23:01 +00:00
|
|
|
|
func lim1(x, y, z int) {
|
|
|
|
|
// Test relations between signed and unsigned limits.
|
|
|
|
|
if x > 5 {
|
2020-02-20 17:46:08 +00:00
|
|
|
|
if uint(x) > 5 { // ERROR "Proved Less64U$"
|
2018-01-11 19:23:01 +00:00
|
|
|
|
return
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
if y >= 0 && y < 4 {
|
2020-02-20 17:46:08 +00:00
|
|
|
|
if uint(y) > 4 { // ERROR "Disproved Less64U$"
|
2018-01-11 19:23:01 +00:00
|
|
|
|
return
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
if uint(y) < 5 { // ERROR "Proved Less64U$"
|
|
|
|
|
return
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
if z < 4 {
|
|
|
|
|
if uint(z) > 4 { // Not provable without disjunctions.
|
|
|
|
|
return
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-01-11 21:32:02 +00:00
|
|
|
|
// fence1–4 correspond to the four fence-post implications.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func fence1(b []int, x, y int) {
|
|
|
|
|
// Test proofs that rely on fence-post implications.
|
|
|
|
|
if x+1 > y {
|
|
|
|
|
if x < y { // ERROR "Disproved Less64$"
|
|
|
|
|
return
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
if len(b) < cap(b) {
|
|
|
|
|
// This eliminates the growslice path.
|
2020-02-20 17:46:08 +00:00
|
|
|
|
b = append(b, 1) // ERROR "Disproved Less64U$"
|
2018-01-11 21:32:02 +00:00
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func fence2(x, y int) {
|
|
|
|
|
if x-1 < y {
|
2020-02-20 17:46:08 +00:00
|
|
|
|
if x > y { // ERROR "Disproved Less64$"
|
2018-01-11 21:32:02 +00:00
|
|
|
|
return
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-08-31 00:15:26 +00:00
|
|
|
|
func fence3(b, c []int, x, y int64) {
|
2018-01-11 21:32:02 +00:00
|
|
|
|
if x-1 >= y {
|
|
|
|
|
if x <= y { // Can't prove because x may have wrapped.
|
|
|
|
|
return
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if x != math.MinInt64 && x-1 >= y {
|
|
|
|
|
if x <= y { // ERROR "Disproved Leq64$"
|
|
|
|
|
return
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-08-31 00:15:26 +00:00
|
|
|
|
c[len(c)-1] = 0 // Can't prove because len(c) might be 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-01-11 21:32:02 +00:00
|
|
|
|
if n := len(b); n > 0 {
|
|
|
|
|
b[n-1] = 0 // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func fence4(x, y int64) {
|
|
|
|
|
if x >= y+1 {
|
|
|
|
|
if x <= y {
|
|
|
|
|
return
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
if y != math.MaxInt64 && x >= y+1 {
|
|
|
|
|
if x <= y { // ERROR "Disproved Leq64$"
|
|
|
|
|
return
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-04-15 21:53:08 +00:00
|
|
|
|
// Check transitive relations
|
|
|
|
|
func trans1(x, y int64) {
|
|
|
|
|
if x > 5 {
|
|
|
|
|
if y > x {
|
2020-02-20 17:46:08 +00:00
|
|
|
|
if y > 2 { // ERROR "Proved Less64$"
|
2018-04-15 21:53:08 +00:00
|
|
|
|
return
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
} else if y == x {
|
2020-02-20 17:46:08 +00:00
|
|
|
|
if y > 5 { // ERROR "Proved Less64$"
|
2018-04-15 21:53:08 +00:00
|
|
|
|
return
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
if x >= 10 {
|
|
|
|
|
if y > x {
|
2020-02-20 17:46:08 +00:00
|
|
|
|
if y > 10 { // ERROR "Proved Less64$"
|
2018-04-15 21:53:08 +00:00
|
|
|
|
return
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func trans2(a, b []int, i int) {
|
|
|
|
|
if len(a) != len(b) {
|
|
|
|
|
return
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
_ = a[i]
|
|
|
|
|
_ = b[i] // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-04-03 16:59:44 +00:00
|
|
|
|
func trans3(a, b []int, i int) {
|
|
|
|
|
if len(a) > len(b) {
|
|
|
|
|
return
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
_ = a[i]
|
|
|
|
|
_ = b[i] // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-11-27 19:46:00 +00:00
|
|
|
|
func trans4(b []byte, x int) {
|
|
|
|
|
// Issue #42603: slice len/cap transitive relations.
|
|
|
|
|
switch x {
|
|
|
|
|
case 0:
|
|
|
|
|
if len(b) < 20 {
|
|
|
|
|
return
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
_ = b[:2] // ERROR "Proved IsSliceInBounds$"
|
|
|
|
|
case 1:
|
|
|
|
|
if len(b) < 40 {
|
|
|
|
|
return
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
_ = b[:2] // ERROR "Proved IsSliceInBounds$"
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-04-15 14:52:49 +00:00
|
|
|
|
// Derived from nat.cmp
|
|
|
|
|
func natcmp(x, y []uint) (r int) {
|
|
|
|
|
m := len(x)
|
|
|
|
|
n := len(y)
|
|
|
|
|
if m != n || m == 0 {
|
|
|
|
|
return
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i := m - 1
|
2018-12-04 15:00:16 +00:00
|
|
|
|
for i > 0 && // ERROR "Induction variable: limits \(0,\?\], increment 1$"
|
2018-04-15 14:52:49 +00:00
|
|
|
|
x[i] == // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
|
|
|
|
y[i] { // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
|
|
|
|
i--
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
switch {
|
|
|
|
|
case x[i] < // todo, cannot prove this because it's dominated by i<=0 || x[i]==y[i]
|
|
|
|
|
y[i]: // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
|
|
|
|
r = -1
|
|
|
|
|
case x[i] > // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
|
|
|
|
y[i]: // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
|
|
|
|
r = 1
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func suffix(s, suffix string) bool {
|
|
|
|
|
// todo, we're still not able to drop the bound check here in the general case
|
|
|
|
|
return len(s) >= len(suffix) && s[len(s)-len(suffix):] == suffix
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func constsuffix(s string) bool {
|
|
|
|
|
return suffix(s, "abc") // ERROR "Proved IsSliceInBounds$"
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
cmd/compile: detect OFORUNTIL inductive facts in prove
Currently, we compile range loops into for loops with the obvious
initialization and update of the index variable. In this form, the
prove pass can see that the body is dominated by an i < len condition,
and findIndVar can detect that i is an induction variable and that
0 <= i < len.
GOEXPERIMENT=preemptibleloops compiles range loops to OFORUNTIL and
we're preparing to unconditionally switch to a variation of this for
#24543. OFORUNTIL moves the increment and condition *after* the body,
which makes the bounds on the index variable much less obvious. With
OFORUNTIL, proving anything about the index variable requires
understanding the phi that joins the index values at the top of the
loop body block.
This interferes with both prove's ability to see that i < len (this is
true on both paths that enter the body, but from two different
conditional checks) and with findIndVar's ability to detect the
induction pattern.
Fix this by teaching prove to detect that the index in the pattern
constructed by OFORUNTIL is an induction variable and add both bounds
to the facts table. Currently this is done separately from findIndVar
because it depends on prove's factsTable, while findIndVar runs before
visiting blocks and building the factsTable.
Without any GOEXPERIMENT, this has no effect on std or cmd. However,
with GOEXPERIMENT=preemptibleloops, this change becomes necessary to
prove 90 conditions in std and cmd.
Change-Id: Ic025d669f81b53426309da5a6e8010e5ccaf4f49
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/102603
Run-TryBot: Austin Clements <austin@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
2018-03-23 21:38:55 +00:00
|
|
|
|
// oforuntil tests the pattern created by OFORUNTIL blocks. These are
|
|
|
|
|
// handled by addLocalInductiveFacts rather than findIndVar.
|
|
|
|
|
func oforuntil(b []int) {
|
|
|
|
|
i := 0
|
|
|
|
|
if len(b) > i {
|
|
|
|
|
top:
|
2020-07-31 05:57:48 +00:00
|
|
|
|
println(b[i]) // ERROR "Induction variable: limits \[0,\?\), increment 1$" "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
cmd/compile: detect OFORUNTIL inductive facts in prove
Currently, we compile range loops into for loops with the obvious
initialization and update of the index variable. In this form, the
prove pass can see that the body is dominated by an i < len condition,
and findIndVar can detect that i is an induction variable and that
0 <= i < len.
GOEXPERIMENT=preemptibleloops compiles range loops to OFORUNTIL and
we're preparing to unconditionally switch to a variation of this for
#24543. OFORUNTIL moves the increment and condition *after* the body,
which makes the bounds on the index variable much less obvious. With
OFORUNTIL, proving anything about the index variable requires
understanding the phi that joins the index values at the top of the
loop body block.
This interferes with both prove's ability to see that i < len (this is
true on both paths that enter the body, but from two different
conditional checks) and with findIndVar's ability to detect the
induction pattern.
Fix this by teaching prove to detect that the index in the pattern
constructed by OFORUNTIL is an induction variable and add both bounds
to the facts table. Currently this is done separately from findIndVar
because it depends on prove's factsTable, while findIndVar runs before
visiting blocks and building the factsTable.
Without any GOEXPERIMENT, this has no effect on std or cmd. However,
with GOEXPERIMENT=preemptibleloops, this change becomes necessary to
prove 90 conditions in std and cmd.
Change-Id: Ic025d669f81b53426309da5a6e8010e5ccaf4f49
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/102603
Run-TryBot: Austin Clements <austin@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
2018-03-23 21:38:55 +00:00
|
|
|
|
i++
|
|
|
|
|
if i < len(b) {
|
|
|
|
|
goto top
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2019-09-22 13:39:16 +00:00
|
|
|
|
func atexit(foobar []func()) {
|
|
|
|
|
for i := len(foobar) - 1; i >= 0; i-- { // ERROR "Induction variable: limits \[0,\?\], increment 1"
|
|
|
|
|
f := foobar[i]
|
|
|
|
|
foobar = foobar[:i] // ERROR "IsSliceInBounds"
|
|
|
|
|
f()
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func make1(n int) []int {
|
|
|
|
|
s := make([]int, n)
|
|
|
|
|
for i := 0; i < n; i++ { // ERROR "Induction variable: limits \[0,\?\), increment 1"
|
|
|
|
|
s[i] = 1 // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return s
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func make2(n int) []int {
|
|
|
|
|
s := make([]int, n)
|
|
|
|
|
for i := range s { // ERROR "Induction variable: limits \[0,\?\), increment 1"
|
|
|
|
|
s[i] = 1 // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return s
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
cmd/compile: don't produce a past-the-end pointer in range loops
Currently, range loops over slices and arrays are compiled roughly
like:
for i, x := range s { b }
⇓
for i, _n, _p := 0, len(s), &s[0]; i < _n; i, _p = i+1, _p + unsafe.Sizeof(s[0]) { b }
⇓
i, _n, _p := 0, len(s), &s[0]
goto cond
body:
{ b }
i, _p = i+1, _p + unsafe.Sizeof(s[0])
cond:
if i < _n { goto body } else { goto end }
end:
The problem with this lowering is that _p may temporarily point past
the end of the allocation the moment before the loop terminates. Right
now this isn't a problem because there's never a safe-point during
this brief moment.
We're about to introduce safe-points everywhere, so this bad pointer
is going to be a problem. We could mark the increment as an unsafe
block, but this inhibits reordering opportunities and could result in
infrequent safe-points if the body is short.
Instead, this CL fixes this by changing how we compile range loops to
never produce this past-the-end pointer. It changes the lowering to
roughly:
i, _n, _p := 0, len(s), &s[0]
if i < _n { goto body } else { goto end }
top:
_p += unsafe.Sizeof(s[0])
body:
{ b }
i++
if i < _n { goto top } else { goto end }
end:
Notably, the increment is split into two parts: we increment the index
before checking the condition, but increment the pointer only *after*
the condition check has succeeded.
The implementation builds on the OFORUNTIL construct that was
introduced during the loop preemption experiments, since OFORUNTIL
places the increment and condition after the loop body. To support the
extra "late increment" step, we further define OFORUNTIL's "List"
field to contain the late increment statements. This makes all of this
a relatively small change.
This depends on the improvements to the prove pass in CL 102603. With
the current lowering, bounds-check elimination knows that i < _n in
the body because the body block is dominated by the cond block. In the
new lowering, deriving this fact requires detecting that i < _n on
*both* paths into body and hence is true in body. CL 102603 made prove
able to detect this.
The code size effect of this is minimal. The cmd/go binary on
linux/amd64 increases by 0.17%. Performance-wise, this actually
appears to be a net win, though it's mostly noise:
name old time/op new time/op delta
BinaryTree17-12 2.80s ± 0% 2.61s ± 1% -6.88% (p=0.000 n=20+18)
Fannkuch11-12 2.41s ± 0% 2.42s ± 0% +0.05% (p=0.005 n=20+20)
FmtFprintfEmpty-12 41.6ns ± 5% 41.4ns ± 6% ~ (p=0.765 n=20+19)
FmtFprintfString-12 69.4ns ± 3% 69.3ns ± 1% ~ (p=0.084 n=19+17)
FmtFprintfInt-12 76.1ns ± 1% 77.3ns ± 1% +1.57% (p=0.000 n=19+19)
FmtFprintfIntInt-12 122ns ± 2% 123ns ± 3% +0.95% (p=0.015 n=20+20)
FmtFprintfPrefixedInt-12 153ns ± 2% 151ns ± 3% -1.27% (p=0.013 n=20+20)
FmtFprintfFloat-12 215ns ± 0% 216ns ± 0% +0.47% (p=0.000 n=20+16)
FmtManyArgs-12 486ns ± 1% 498ns ± 0% +2.40% (p=0.000 n=20+17)
GobDecode-12 6.43ms ± 0% 6.50ms ± 0% +1.08% (p=0.000 n=18+19)
GobEncode-12 5.43ms ± 1% 5.47ms ± 0% +0.76% (p=0.000 n=20+20)
Gzip-12 218ms ± 1% 218ms ± 1% ~ (p=0.883 n=20+20)
Gunzip-12 38.8ms ± 0% 38.9ms ± 0% ~ (p=0.644 n=19+19)
HTTPClientServer-12 76.2µs ± 1% 76.4µs ± 2% ~ (p=0.218 n=20+20)
JSONEncode-12 12.2ms ± 0% 12.3ms ± 1% +0.45% (p=0.000 n=19+19)
JSONDecode-12 54.2ms ± 1% 53.3ms ± 0% -1.67% (p=0.000 n=20+20)
Mandelbrot200-12 3.71ms ± 0% 3.71ms ± 0% ~ (p=0.143 n=19+20)
GoParse-12 3.22ms ± 0% 3.19ms ± 1% -0.72% (p=0.000 n=20+20)
RegexpMatchEasy0_32-12 76.7ns ± 1% 75.8ns ± 1% -1.19% (p=0.000 n=20+17)
RegexpMatchEasy0_1K-12 245ns ± 1% 243ns ± 0% -0.72% (p=0.000 n=18+17)
RegexpMatchEasy1_32-12 71.9ns ± 0% 71.7ns ± 1% -0.39% (p=0.006 n=12+18)
RegexpMatchEasy1_1K-12 358ns ± 1% 354ns ± 1% -1.13% (p=0.000 n=20+19)
RegexpMatchMedium_32-12 105ns ± 2% 105ns ± 1% -0.63% (p=0.007 n=19+20)
RegexpMatchMedium_1K-12 31.9µs ± 1% 31.9µs ± 1% ~ (p=1.000 n=17+17)
RegexpMatchHard_32-12 1.51µs ± 1% 1.52µs ± 2% +0.46% (p=0.042 n=18+18)
RegexpMatchHard_1K-12 45.3µs ± 1% 45.5µs ± 2% +0.44% (p=0.029 n=18+19)
Revcomp-12 388ms ± 1% 385ms ± 0% -0.57% (p=0.000 n=19+18)
Template-12 63.0ms ± 1% 63.3ms ± 0% +0.50% (p=0.000 n=19+20)
TimeParse-12 309ns ± 1% 307ns ± 0% -0.62% (p=0.000 n=20+20)
TimeFormat-12 328ns ± 0% 333ns ± 0% +1.35% (p=0.000 n=19+19)
[Geo mean] 47.0µs 46.9µs -0.20%
(https://perf.golang.org/search?q=upload:20180326.1)
For #10958.
For #24543.
Change-Id: Icbd52e711fdbe7938a1fea3e6baca1104b53ac3a
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/102604
Run-TryBot: Austin Clements <austin@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
2018-03-22 16:04:51 +00:00
|
|
|
|
// The range tests below test the index variable of range loops.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// range1 compiles to the "efficiently indexable" form of a range loop.
|
|
|
|
|
func range1(b []int) {
|
|
|
|
|
for i, v := range b { // ERROR "Induction variable: limits \[0,\?\), increment 1$"
|
|
|
|
|
b[i] = v + 1 // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
|
|
|
|
if i < len(b) { // ERROR "Proved Less64$"
|
|
|
|
|
println("x")
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-02-20 17:46:08 +00:00
|
|
|
|
if i >= 0 { // ERROR "Proved Leq64$"
|
cmd/compile: don't produce a past-the-end pointer in range loops
Currently, range loops over slices and arrays are compiled roughly
like:
for i, x := range s { b }
⇓
for i, _n, _p := 0, len(s), &s[0]; i < _n; i, _p = i+1, _p + unsafe.Sizeof(s[0]) { b }
⇓
i, _n, _p := 0, len(s), &s[0]
goto cond
body:
{ b }
i, _p = i+1, _p + unsafe.Sizeof(s[0])
cond:
if i < _n { goto body } else { goto end }
end:
The problem with this lowering is that _p may temporarily point past
the end of the allocation the moment before the loop terminates. Right
now this isn't a problem because there's never a safe-point during
this brief moment.
We're about to introduce safe-points everywhere, so this bad pointer
is going to be a problem. We could mark the increment as an unsafe
block, but this inhibits reordering opportunities and could result in
infrequent safe-points if the body is short.
Instead, this CL fixes this by changing how we compile range loops to
never produce this past-the-end pointer. It changes the lowering to
roughly:
i, _n, _p := 0, len(s), &s[0]
if i < _n { goto body } else { goto end }
top:
_p += unsafe.Sizeof(s[0])
body:
{ b }
i++
if i < _n { goto top } else { goto end }
end:
Notably, the increment is split into two parts: we increment the index
before checking the condition, but increment the pointer only *after*
the condition check has succeeded.
The implementation builds on the OFORUNTIL construct that was
introduced during the loop preemption experiments, since OFORUNTIL
places the increment and condition after the loop body. To support the
extra "late increment" step, we further define OFORUNTIL's "List"
field to contain the late increment statements. This makes all of this
a relatively small change.
This depends on the improvements to the prove pass in CL 102603. With
the current lowering, bounds-check elimination knows that i < _n in
the body because the body block is dominated by the cond block. In the
new lowering, deriving this fact requires detecting that i < _n on
*both* paths into body and hence is true in body. CL 102603 made prove
able to detect this.
The code size effect of this is minimal. The cmd/go binary on
linux/amd64 increases by 0.17%. Performance-wise, this actually
appears to be a net win, though it's mostly noise:
name old time/op new time/op delta
BinaryTree17-12 2.80s ± 0% 2.61s ± 1% -6.88% (p=0.000 n=20+18)
Fannkuch11-12 2.41s ± 0% 2.42s ± 0% +0.05% (p=0.005 n=20+20)
FmtFprintfEmpty-12 41.6ns ± 5% 41.4ns ± 6% ~ (p=0.765 n=20+19)
FmtFprintfString-12 69.4ns ± 3% 69.3ns ± 1% ~ (p=0.084 n=19+17)
FmtFprintfInt-12 76.1ns ± 1% 77.3ns ± 1% +1.57% (p=0.000 n=19+19)
FmtFprintfIntInt-12 122ns ± 2% 123ns ± 3% +0.95% (p=0.015 n=20+20)
FmtFprintfPrefixedInt-12 153ns ± 2% 151ns ± 3% -1.27% (p=0.013 n=20+20)
FmtFprintfFloat-12 215ns ± 0% 216ns ± 0% +0.47% (p=0.000 n=20+16)
FmtManyArgs-12 486ns ± 1% 498ns ± 0% +2.40% (p=0.000 n=20+17)
GobDecode-12 6.43ms ± 0% 6.50ms ± 0% +1.08% (p=0.000 n=18+19)
GobEncode-12 5.43ms ± 1% 5.47ms ± 0% +0.76% (p=0.000 n=20+20)
Gzip-12 218ms ± 1% 218ms ± 1% ~ (p=0.883 n=20+20)
Gunzip-12 38.8ms ± 0% 38.9ms ± 0% ~ (p=0.644 n=19+19)
HTTPClientServer-12 76.2µs ± 1% 76.4µs ± 2% ~ (p=0.218 n=20+20)
JSONEncode-12 12.2ms ± 0% 12.3ms ± 1% +0.45% (p=0.000 n=19+19)
JSONDecode-12 54.2ms ± 1% 53.3ms ± 0% -1.67% (p=0.000 n=20+20)
Mandelbrot200-12 3.71ms ± 0% 3.71ms ± 0% ~ (p=0.143 n=19+20)
GoParse-12 3.22ms ± 0% 3.19ms ± 1% -0.72% (p=0.000 n=20+20)
RegexpMatchEasy0_32-12 76.7ns ± 1% 75.8ns ± 1% -1.19% (p=0.000 n=20+17)
RegexpMatchEasy0_1K-12 245ns ± 1% 243ns ± 0% -0.72% (p=0.000 n=18+17)
RegexpMatchEasy1_32-12 71.9ns ± 0% 71.7ns ± 1% -0.39% (p=0.006 n=12+18)
RegexpMatchEasy1_1K-12 358ns ± 1% 354ns ± 1% -1.13% (p=0.000 n=20+19)
RegexpMatchMedium_32-12 105ns ± 2% 105ns ± 1% -0.63% (p=0.007 n=19+20)
RegexpMatchMedium_1K-12 31.9µs ± 1% 31.9µs ± 1% ~ (p=1.000 n=17+17)
RegexpMatchHard_32-12 1.51µs ± 1% 1.52µs ± 2% +0.46% (p=0.042 n=18+18)
RegexpMatchHard_1K-12 45.3µs ± 1% 45.5µs ± 2% +0.44% (p=0.029 n=18+19)
Revcomp-12 388ms ± 1% 385ms ± 0% -0.57% (p=0.000 n=19+18)
Template-12 63.0ms ± 1% 63.3ms ± 0% +0.50% (p=0.000 n=19+20)
TimeParse-12 309ns ± 1% 307ns ± 0% -0.62% (p=0.000 n=20+20)
TimeFormat-12 328ns ± 0% 333ns ± 0% +1.35% (p=0.000 n=19+19)
[Geo mean] 47.0µs 46.9µs -0.20%
(https://perf.golang.org/search?q=upload:20180326.1)
For #10958.
For #24543.
Change-Id: Icbd52e711fdbe7938a1fea3e6baca1104b53ac3a
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/102604
Run-TryBot: Austin Clements <austin@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
2018-03-22 16:04:51 +00:00
|
|
|
|
println("x")
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// range2 elements are larger, so they use the general form of a range loop.
|
|
|
|
|
func range2(b [][32]int) {
|
|
|
|
|
for i, v := range b {
|
2020-07-31 05:57:48 +00:00
|
|
|
|
b[i][0] = v[0] + 1 // ERROR "Induction variable: limits \[0,\?\), increment 1$" "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
cmd/compile: don't produce a past-the-end pointer in range loops
Currently, range loops over slices and arrays are compiled roughly
like:
for i, x := range s { b }
⇓
for i, _n, _p := 0, len(s), &s[0]; i < _n; i, _p = i+1, _p + unsafe.Sizeof(s[0]) { b }
⇓
i, _n, _p := 0, len(s), &s[0]
goto cond
body:
{ b }
i, _p = i+1, _p + unsafe.Sizeof(s[0])
cond:
if i < _n { goto body } else { goto end }
end:
The problem with this lowering is that _p may temporarily point past
the end of the allocation the moment before the loop terminates. Right
now this isn't a problem because there's never a safe-point during
this brief moment.
We're about to introduce safe-points everywhere, so this bad pointer
is going to be a problem. We could mark the increment as an unsafe
block, but this inhibits reordering opportunities and could result in
infrequent safe-points if the body is short.
Instead, this CL fixes this by changing how we compile range loops to
never produce this past-the-end pointer. It changes the lowering to
roughly:
i, _n, _p := 0, len(s), &s[0]
if i < _n { goto body } else { goto end }
top:
_p += unsafe.Sizeof(s[0])
body:
{ b }
i++
if i < _n { goto top } else { goto end }
end:
Notably, the increment is split into two parts: we increment the index
before checking the condition, but increment the pointer only *after*
the condition check has succeeded.
The implementation builds on the OFORUNTIL construct that was
introduced during the loop preemption experiments, since OFORUNTIL
places the increment and condition after the loop body. To support the
extra "late increment" step, we further define OFORUNTIL's "List"
field to contain the late increment statements. This makes all of this
a relatively small change.
This depends on the improvements to the prove pass in CL 102603. With
the current lowering, bounds-check elimination knows that i < _n in
the body because the body block is dominated by the cond block. In the
new lowering, deriving this fact requires detecting that i < _n on
*both* paths into body and hence is true in body. CL 102603 made prove
able to detect this.
The code size effect of this is minimal. The cmd/go binary on
linux/amd64 increases by 0.17%. Performance-wise, this actually
appears to be a net win, though it's mostly noise:
name old time/op new time/op delta
BinaryTree17-12 2.80s ± 0% 2.61s ± 1% -6.88% (p=0.000 n=20+18)
Fannkuch11-12 2.41s ± 0% 2.42s ± 0% +0.05% (p=0.005 n=20+20)
FmtFprintfEmpty-12 41.6ns ± 5% 41.4ns ± 6% ~ (p=0.765 n=20+19)
FmtFprintfString-12 69.4ns ± 3% 69.3ns ± 1% ~ (p=0.084 n=19+17)
FmtFprintfInt-12 76.1ns ± 1% 77.3ns ± 1% +1.57% (p=0.000 n=19+19)
FmtFprintfIntInt-12 122ns ± 2% 123ns ± 3% +0.95% (p=0.015 n=20+20)
FmtFprintfPrefixedInt-12 153ns ± 2% 151ns ± 3% -1.27% (p=0.013 n=20+20)
FmtFprintfFloat-12 215ns ± 0% 216ns ± 0% +0.47% (p=0.000 n=20+16)
FmtManyArgs-12 486ns ± 1% 498ns ± 0% +2.40% (p=0.000 n=20+17)
GobDecode-12 6.43ms ± 0% 6.50ms ± 0% +1.08% (p=0.000 n=18+19)
GobEncode-12 5.43ms ± 1% 5.47ms ± 0% +0.76% (p=0.000 n=20+20)
Gzip-12 218ms ± 1% 218ms ± 1% ~ (p=0.883 n=20+20)
Gunzip-12 38.8ms ± 0% 38.9ms ± 0% ~ (p=0.644 n=19+19)
HTTPClientServer-12 76.2µs ± 1% 76.4µs ± 2% ~ (p=0.218 n=20+20)
JSONEncode-12 12.2ms ± 0% 12.3ms ± 1% +0.45% (p=0.000 n=19+19)
JSONDecode-12 54.2ms ± 1% 53.3ms ± 0% -1.67% (p=0.000 n=20+20)
Mandelbrot200-12 3.71ms ± 0% 3.71ms ± 0% ~ (p=0.143 n=19+20)
GoParse-12 3.22ms ± 0% 3.19ms ± 1% -0.72% (p=0.000 n=20+20)
RegexpMatchEasy0_32-12 76.7ns ± 1% 75.8ns ± 1% -1.19% (p=0.000 n=20+17)
RegexpMatchEasy0_1K-12 245ns ± 1% 243ns ± 0% -0.72% (p=0.000 n=18+17)
RegexpMatchEasy1_32-12 71.9ns ± 0% 71.7ns ± 1% -0.39% (p=0.006 n=12+18)
RegexpMatchEasy1_1K-12 358ns ± 1% 354ns ± 1% -1.13% (p=0.000 n=20+19)
RegexpMatchMedium_32-12 105ns ± 2% 105ns ± 1% -0.63% (p=0.007 n=19+20)
RegexpMatchMedium_1K-12 31.9µs ± 1% 31.9µs ± 1% ~ (p=1.000 n=17+17)
RegexpMatchHard_32-12 1.51µs ± 1% 1.52µs ± 2% +0.46% (p=0.042 n=18+18)
RegexpMatchHard_1K-12 45.3µs ± 1% 45.5µs ± 2% +0.44% (p=0.029 n=18+19)
Revcomp-12 388ms ± 1% 385ms ± 0% -0.57% (p=0.000 n=19+18)
Template-12 63.0ms ± 1% 63.3ms ± 0% +0.50% (p=0.000 n=19+20)
TimeParse-12 309ns ± 1% 307ns ± 0% -0.62% (p=0.000 n=20+20)
TimeFormat-12 328ns ± 0% 333ns ± 0% +1.35% (p=0.000 n=19+19)
[Geo mean] 47.0µs 46.9µs -0.20%
(https://perf.golang.org/search?q=upload:20180326.1)
For #10958.
For #24543.
Change-Id: Icbd52e711fdbe7938a1fea3e6baca1104b53ac3a
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/102604
Run-TryBot: Austin Clements <austin@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
2018-03-22 16:04:51 +00:00
|
|
|
|
if i < len(b) { // ERROR "Proved Less64$"
|
|
|
|
|
println("x")
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
2020-02-20 17:46:08 +00:00
|
|
|
|
if i >= 0 { // ERROR "Proved Leq64$"
|
cmd/compile: don't produce a past-the-end pointer in range loops
Currently, range loops over slices and arrays are compiled roughly
like:
for i, x := range s { b }
⇓
for i, _n, _p := 0, len(s), &s[0]; i < _n; i, _p = i+1, _p + unsafe.Sizeof(s[0]) { b }
⇓
i, _n, _p := 0, len(s), &s[0]
goto cond
body:
{ b }
i, _p = i+1, _p + unsafe.Sizeof(s[0])
cond:
if i < _n { goto body } else { goto end }
end:
The problem with this lowering is that _p may temporarily point past
the end of the allocation the moment before the loop terminates. Right
now this isn't a problem because there's never a safe-point during
this brief moment.
We're about to introduce safe-points everywhere, so this bad pointer
is going to be a problem. We could mark the increment as an unsafe
block, but this inhibits reordering opportunities and could result in
infrequent safe-points if the body is short.
Instead, this CL fixes this by changing how we compile range loops to
never produce this past-the-end pointer. It changes the lowering to
roughly:
i, _n, _p := 0, len(s), &s[0]
if i < _n { goto body } else { goto end }
top:
_p += unsafe.Sizeof(s[0])
body:
{ b }
i++
if i < _n { goto top } else { goto end }
end:
Notably, the increment is split into two parts: we increment the index
before checking the condition, but increment the pointer only *after*
the condition check has succeeded.
The implementation builds on the OFORUNTIL construct that was
introduced during the loop preemption experiments, since OFORUNTIL
places the increment and condition after the loop body. To support the
extra "late increment" step, we further define OFORUNTIL's "List"
field to contain the late increment statements. This makes all of this
a relatively small change.
This depends on the improvements to the prove pass in CL 102603. With
the current lowering, bounds-check elimination knows that i < _n in
the body because the body block is dominated by the cond block. In the
new lowering, deriving this fact requires detecting that i < _n on
*both* paths into body and hence is true in body. CL 102603 made prove
able to detect this.
The code size effect of this is minimal. The cmd/go binary on
linux/amd64 increases by 0.17%. Performance-wise, this actually
appears to be a net win, though it's mostly noise:
name old time/op new time/op delta
BinaryTree17-12 2.80s ± 0% 2.61s ± 1% -6.88% (p=0.000 n=20+18)
Fannkuch11-12 2.41s ± 0% 2.42s ± 0% +0.05% (p=0.005 n=20+20)
FmtFprintfEmpty-12 41.6ns ± 5% 41.4ns ± 6% ~ (p=0.765 n=20+19)
FmtFprintfString-12 69.4ns ± 3% 69.3ns ± 1% ~ (p=0.084 n=19+17)
FmtFprintfInt-12 76.1ns ± 1% 77.3ns ± 1% +1.57% (p=0.000 n=19+19)
FmtFprintfIntInt-12 122ns ± 2% 123ns ± 3% +0.95% (p=0.015 n=20+20)
FmtFprintfPrefixedInt-12 153ns ± 2% 151ns ± 3% -1.27% (p=0.013 n=20+20)
FmtFprintfFloat-12 215ns ± 0% 216ns ± 0% +0.47% (p=0.000 n=20+16)
FmtManyArgs-12 486ns ± 1% 498ns ± 0% +2.40% (p=0.000 n=20+17)
GobDecode-12 6.43ms ± 0% 6.50ms ± 0% +1.08% (p=0.000 n=18+19)
GobEncode-12 5.43ms ± 1% 5.47ms ± 0% +0.76% (p=0.000 n=20+20)
Gzip-12 218ms ± 1% 218ms ± 1% ~ (p=0.883 n=20+20)
Gunzip-12 38.8ms ± 0% 38.9ms ± 0% ~ (p=0.644 n=19+19)
HTTPClientServer-12 76.2µs ± 1% 76.4µs ± 2% ~ (p=0.218 n=20+20)
JSONEncode-12 12.2ms ± 0% 12.3ms ± 1% +0.45% (p=0.000 n=19+19)
JSONDecode-12 54.2ms ± 1% 53.3ms ± 0% -1.67% (p=0.000 n=20+20)
Mandelbrot200-12 3.71ms ± 0% 3.71ms ± 0% ~ (p=0.143 n=19+20)
GoParse-12 3.22ms ± 0% 3.19ms ± 1% -0.72% (p=0.000 n=20+20)
RegexpMatchEasy0_32-12 76.7ns ± 1% 75.8ns ± 1% -1.19% (p=0.000 n=20+17)
RegexpMatchEasy0_1K-12 245ns ± 1% 243ns ± 0% -0.72% (p=0.000 n=18+17)
RegexpMatchEasy1_32-12 71.9ns ± 0% 71.7ns ± 1% -0.39% (p=0.006 n=12+18)
RegexpMatchEasy1_1K-12 358ns ± 1% 354ns ± 1% -1.13% (p=0.000 n=20+19)
RegexpMatchMedium_32-12 105ns ± 2% 105ns ± 1% -0.63% (p=0.007 n=19+20)
RegexpMatchMedium_1K-12 31.9µs ± 1% 31.9µs ± 1% ~ (p=1.000 n=17+17)
RegexpMatchHard_32-12 1.51µs ± 1% 1.52µs ± 2% +0.46% (p=0.042 n=18+18)
RegexpMatchHard_1K-12 45.3µs ± 1% 45.5µs ± 2% +0.44% (p=0.029 n=18+19)
Revcomp-12 388ms ± 1% 385ms ± 0% -0.57% (p=0.000 n=19+18)
Template-12 63.0ms ± 1% 63.3ms ± 0% +0.50% (p=0.000 n=19+20)
TimeParse-12 309ns ± 1% 307ns ± 0% -0.62% (p=0.000 n=20+20)
TimeFormat-12 328ns ± 0% 333ns ± 0% +1.35% (p=0.000 n=19+19)
[Geo mean] 47.0µs 46.9µs -0.20%
(https://perf.golang.org/search?q=upload:20180326.1)
For #10958.
For #24543.
Change-Id: Icbd52e711fdbe7938a1fea3e6baca1104b53ac3a
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/102604
Run-TryBot: Austin Clements <austin@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
2018-03-22 16:04:51 +00:00
|
|
|
|
println("x")
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2019-02-06 19:49:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
// signhint1-2 test whether the hint (int >= 0) is propagated into the loop.
|
|
|
|
|
func signHint1(i int, data []byte) {
|
|
|
|
|
if i >= 0 {
|
|
|
|
|
for i < len(data) { // ERROR "Induction variable: limits \[\?,\?\), increment 1$"
|
|
|
|
|
_ = data[i] // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
|
|
|
|
i++
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func signHint2(b []byte, n int) {
|
|
|
|
|
if n < 0 {
|
|
|
|
|
panic("")
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
_ = b[25]
|
|
|
|
|
for i := n; i <= 25; i++ { // ERROR "Induction variable: limits \[\?,25\], increment 1$"
|
|
|
|
|
b[i] = 123 // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2019-03-30 17:28:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
// indexGT0 tests whether prove learns int index >= 0 from bounds check.
|
|
|
|
|
func indexGT0(b []byte, n int) {
|
|
|
|
|
_ = b[n]
|
|
|
|
|
_ = b[25]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
for i := n; i <= 25; i++ { // ERROR "Induction variable: limits \[\?,25\], increment 1$"
|
|
|
|
|
b[i] = 123 // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-09-19 20:20:35 +00:00
|
|
|
|
// Induction variable in unrolled loop.
|
|
|
|
|
func unrollUpExcl(a []int) int {
|
|
|
|
|
var i, x int
|
|
|
|
|
for i = 0; i < len(a)-1; i += 2 { // ERROR "Induction variable: limits \[0,\?\), increment 2$"
|
|
|
|
|
x += a[i] // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
|
|
|
|
x += a[i+1]
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
if i == len(a)-1 {
|
|
|
|
|
x += a[i]
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return x
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Induction variable in unrolled loop.
|
|
|
|
|
func unrollUpIncl(a []int) int {
|
|
|
|
|
var i, x int
|
|
|
|
|
for i = 0; i <= len(a)-2; i += 2 { // ERROR "Induction variable: limits \[0,\?\], increment 2$"
|
|
|
|
|
x += a[i]
|
|
|
|
|
x += a[i+1]
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
if i == len(a)-1 {
|
|
|
|
|
x += a[i]
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return x
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Induction variable in unrolled loop.
|
|
|
|
|
func unrollDownExcl0(a []int) int {
|
|
|
|
|
var i, x int
|
|
|
|
|
for i = len(a) - 1; i > 0; i -= 2 { // ERROR "Induction variable: limits \(0,\?\], increment 2$"
|
|
|
|
|
x += a[i] // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
|
|
|
|
x += a[i-1] // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
if i == 0 {
|
|
|
|
|
x += a[i]
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return x
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Induction variable in unrolled loop.
|
|
|
|
|
func unrollDownExcl1(a []int) int {
|
|
|
|
|
var i, x int
|
|
|
|
|
for i = len(a) - 1; i >= 1; i -= 2 { // ERROR "Induction variable: limits \[1,\?\], increment 2$"
|
|
|
|
|
x += a[i] // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
|
|
|
|
x += a[i-1] // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
if i == 0 {
|
|
|
|
|
x += a[i]
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return x
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Induction variable in unrolled loop.
|
|
|
|
|
func unrollDownInclStep(a []int) int {
|
|
|
|
|
var i, x int
|
|
|
|
|
for i = len(a); i >= 2; i -= 2 { // ERROR "Induction variable: limits \[2,\?\], increment 2$"
|
|
|
|
|
x += a[i-1] // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
|
|
|
|
x += a[i-2]
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
if i == 1 {
|
|
|
|
|
x += a[i-1]
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return x
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Not an induction variable (step too large)
|
|
|
|
|
func unrollExclStepTooLarge(a []int) int {
|
|
|
|
|
var i, x int
|
|
|
|
|
for i = 0; i < len(a)-1; i += 3 {
|
|
|
|
|
x += a[i]
|
|
|
|
|
x += a[i+1]
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
if i == len(a)-1 {
|
|
|
|
|
x += a[i]
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return x
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Not an induction variable (step too large)
|
|
|
|
|
func unrollInclStepTooLarge(a []int) int {
|
|
|
|
|
var i, x int
|
|
|
|
|
for i = 0; i <= len(a)-2; i += 3 {
|
|
|
|
|
x += a[i]
|
|
|
|
|
x += a[i+1]
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
if i == len(a)-1 {
|
|
|
|
|
x += a[i]
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return x
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Not an induction variable (min too small, iterating down)
|
|
|
|
|
func unrollDecMin(a []int) int {
|
|
|
|
|
var i, x int
|
|
|
|
|
for i = len(a); i >= math.MinInt64; i -= 2 {
|
|
|
|
|
x += a[i-1]
|
|
|
|
|
x += a[i-2]
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
if i == 1 { // ERROR "Disproved Eq64$"
|
|
|
|
|
x += a[i-1]
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return x
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Not an induction variable (min too small, iterating up -- perhaps could allow, but why bother?)
|
|
|
|
|
func unrollIncMin(a []int) int {
|
|
|
|
|
var i, x int
|
|
|
|
|
for i = len(a); i >= math.MinInt64; i += 2 {
|
|
|
|
|
x += a[i-1]
|
|
|
|
|
x += a[i-2]
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
if i == 1 { // ERROR "Disproved Eq64$"
|
|
|
|
|
x += a[i-1]
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return x
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
cmd/compile: handle sign/zero extensions in prove, via update method
Array accesses with index types smaller than the machine word size may
involve a sign or zero extension of the index value before bounds
checking. Currently, this defeats prove because the facts about the
original index value don't flow through the sign/zero extension.
This CL fixes this by looking back through value-preserving sign/zero
extensions when adding facts via Update and, where appropriate, applying
the same facts using the pre-extension value. This fix is enhanced by
also looking back through value-preserving extensions within
ft.isNonNegative to infer whether the extended value is known to be
non-negative. Without this additional isNonNegative enhancement, this
logic is rendered significantly less effective by the limitation
discussed in the next paragraph.
In Update, the application of facts to pre-extension values is limited
to cases where the domain of the new fact is consistent with the type of
the pre-extension value. There may be cases where this cross-domain
passing of facts is valid, but distinguishing them from the invalid
cases is difficult for me to reason about and to implement.
Assessing which cases to allow requires details about the context and
inferences behind the fact being applied which are not available
within Update. Additional difficulty arises from the fact that the SSA
does not curently differentiate extensions added by the compiler for
indexing operations, extensions added by the compiler for implicit
conversions, or explicit extensions from the source.
Examples of some cases that would need to be filtered correctly for
cross-domain facts:
(1) A uint8 is zero-extended to int for indexing (a value-preserving
zeroExt). When, if ever, can signed domain facts learned about the int be
applied to the uint8?
(2) An int8 is sign-extended to int16 (value-preserving) for an equality
comparison. Equality comparison facts are currently always learned in both
the signed and unsigned domains. When, if ever, can the unsigned facts
learned about the int16, from the int16 != int16 comparison, be applied
to the original int8?
This is an alternative to CL 122695 and CL 174309. Compared to CL 122695,
this CL differs in that the facts added about the pre-extension value will
pass through the Update method, where additional inferences are processed
(e.g. fence-post implications, see #29964). CL 174309 is limited to bounds
checks, so is narrower in application, and makes the code harder to read.
Fixes #26292.
Fixes #29964.
Fixes #15074
Removes 238 bounds checks from std/cmd.
Change-Id: I1f87c32ee672bfb8be397b27eab7a4c2f304893f
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/174704
Run-TryBot: Zach Jones <zachj1@gmail.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Giovanni Bajo <rasky@develer.com>
2019-04-09 22:19:43 +00:00
|
|
|
|
// The 4 xxxxExtNto64 functions below test whether prove is looking
|
|
|
|
|
// through value-preserving sign/zero extensions of index values (issue #26292).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Look through all extensions
|
|
|
|
|
func signExtNto64(x []int, j8 int8, j16 int16, j32 int32) int {
|
|
|
|
|
if len(x) < 22 {
|
|
|
|
|
return 0
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
if j8 >= 0 && j8 < 22 {
|
2019-09-22 13:39:16 +00:00
|
|
|
|
return x[j8] // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
cmd/compile: handle sign/zero extensions in prove, via update method
Array accesses with index types smaller than the machine word size may
involve a sign or zero extension of the index value before bounds
checking. Currently, this defeats prove because the facts about the
original index value don't flow through the sign/zero extension.
This CL fixes this by looking back through value-preserving sign/zero
extensions when adding facts via Update and, where appropriate, applying
the same facts using the pre-extension value. This fix is enhanced by
also looking back through value-preserving extensions within
ft.isNonNegative to infer whether the extended value is known to be
non-negative. Without this additional isNonNegative enhancement, this
logic is rendered significantly less effective by the limitation
discussed in the next paragraph.
In Update, the application of facts to pre-extension values is limited
to cases where the domain of the new fact is consistent with the type of
the pre-extension value. There may be cases where this cross-domain
passing of facts is valid, but distinguishing them from the invalid
cases is difficult for me to reason about and to implement.
Assessing which cases to allow requires details about the context and
inferences behind the fact being applied which are not available
within Update. Additional difficulty arises from the fact that the SSA
does not curently differentiate extensions added by the compiler for
indexing operations, extensions added by the compiler for implicit
conversions, or explicit extensions from the source.
Examples of some cases that would need to be filtered correctly for
cross-domain facts:
(1) A uint8 is zero-extended to int for indexing (a value-preserving
zeroExt). When, if ever, can signed domain facts learned about the int be
applied to the uint8?
(2) An int8 is sign-extended to int16 (value-preserving) for an equality
comparison. Equality comparison facts are currently always learned in both
the signed and unsigned domains. When, if ever, can the unsigned facts
learned about the int16, from the int16 != int16 comparison, be applied
to the original int8?
This is an alternative to CL 122695 and CL 174309. Compared to CL 122695,
this CL differs in that the facts added about the pre-extension value will
pass through the Update method, where additional inferences are processed
(e.g. fence-post implications, see #29964). CL 174309 is limited to bounds
checks, so is narrower in application, and makes the code harder to read.
Fixes #26292.
Fixes #29964.
Fixes #15074
Removes 238 bounds checks from std/cmd.
Change-Id: I1f87c32ee672bfb8be397b27eab7a4c2f304893f
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/174704
Run-TryBot: Zach Jones <zachj1@gmail.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Giovanni Bajo <rasky@develer.com>
2019-04-09 22:19:43 +00:00
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
if j16 >= 0 && j16 < 22 {
|
2019-09-22 13:39:16 +00:00
|
|
|
|
return x[j16] // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
cmd/compile: handle sign/zero extensions in prove, via update method
Array accesses with index types smaller than the machine word size may
involve a sign or zero extension of the index value before bounds
checking. Currently, this defeats prove because the facts about the
original index value don't flow through the sign/zero extension.
This CL fixes this by looking back through value-preserving sign/zero
extensions when adding facts via Update and, where appropriate, applying
the same facts using the pre-extension value. This fix is enhanced by
also looking back through value-preserving extensions within
ft.isNonNegative to infer whether the extended value is known to be
non-negative. Without this additional isNonNegative enhancement, this
logic is rendered significantly less effective by the limitation
discussed in the next paragraph.
In Update, the application of facts to pre-extension values is limited
to cases where the domain of the new fact is consistent with the type of
the pre-extension value. There may be cases where this cross-domain
passing of facts is valid, but distinguishing them from the invalid
cases is difficult for me to reason about and to implement.
Assessing which cases to allow requires details about the context and
inferences behind the fact being applied which are not available
within Update. Additional difficulty arises from the fact that the SSA
does not curently differentiate extensions added by the compiler for
indexing operations, extensions added by the compiler for implicit
conversions, or explicit extensions from the source.
Examples of some cases that would need to be filtered correctly for
cross-domain facts:
(1) A uint8 is zero-extended to int for indexing (a value-preserving
zeroExt). When, if ever, can signed domain facts learned about the int be
applied to the uint8?
(2) An int8 is sign-extended to int16 (value-preserving) for an equality
comparison. Equality comparison facts are currently always learned in both
the signed and unsigned domains. When, if ever, can the unsigned facts
learned about the int16, from the int16 != int16 comparison, be applied
to the original int8?
This is an alternative to CL 122695 and CL 174309. Compared to CL 122695,
this CL differs in that the facts added about the pre-extension value will
pass through the Update method, where additional inferences are processed
(e.g. fence-post implications, see #29964). CL 174309 is limited to bounds
checks, so is narrower in application, and makes the code harder to read.
Fixes #26292.
Fixes #29964.
Fixes #15074
Removes 238 bounds checks from std/cmd.
Change-Id: I1f87c32ee672bfb8be397b27eab7a4c2f304893f
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/174704
Run-TryBot: Zach Jones <zachj1@gmail.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Giovanni Bajo <rasky@develer.com>
2019-04-09 22:19:43 +00:00
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
if j32 >= 0 && j32 < 22 {
|
2019-09-22 13:39:16 +00:00
|
|
|
|
return x[j32] // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
cmd/compile: handle sign/zero extensions in prove, via update method
Array accesses with index types smaller than the machine word size may
involve a sign or zero extension of the index value before bounds
checking. Currently, this defeats prove because the facts about the
original index value don't flow through the sign/zero extension.
This CL fixes this by looking back through value-preserving sign/zero
extensions when adding facts via Update and, where appropriate, applying
the same facts using the pre-extension value. This fix is enhanced by
also looking back through value-preserving extensions within
ft.isNonNegative to infer whether the extended value is known to be
non-negative. Without this additional isNonNegative enhancement, this
logic is rendered significantly less effective by the limitation
discussed in the next paragraph.
In Update, the application of facts to pre-extension values is limited
to cases where the domain of the new fact is consistent with the type of
the pre-extension value. There may be cases where this cross-domain
passing of facts is valid, but distinguishing them from the invalid
cases is difficult for me to reason about and to implement.
Assessing which cases to allow requires details about the context and
inferences behind the fact being applied which are not available
within Update. Additional difficulty arises from the fact that the SSA
does not curently differentiate extensions added by the compiler for
indexing operations, extensions added by the compiler for implicit
conversions, or explicit extensions from the source.
Examples of some cases that would need to be filtered correctly for
cross-domain facts:
(1) A uint8 is zero-extended to int for indexing (a value-preserving
zeroExt). When, if ever, can signed domain facts learned about the int be
applied to the uint8?
(2) An int8 is sign-extended to int16 (value-preserving) for an equality
comparison. Equality comparison facts are currently always learned in both
the signed and unsigned domains. When, if ever, can the unsigned facts
learned about the int16, from the int16 != int16 comparison, be applied
to the original int8?
This is an alternative to CL 122695 and CL 174309. Compared to CL 122695,
this CL differs in that the facts added about the pre-extension value will
pass through the Update method, where additional inferences are processed
(e.g. fence-post implications, see #29964). CL 174309 is limited to bounds
checks, so is narrower in application, and makes the code harder to read.
Fixes #26292.
Fixes #29964.
Fixes #15074
Removes 238 bounds checks from std/cmd.
Change-Id: I1f87c32ee672bfb8be397b27eab7a4c2f304893f
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/174704
Run-TryBot: Zach Jones <zachj1@gmail.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Giovanni Bajo <rasky@develer.com>
2019-04-09 22:19:43 +00:00
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return 0
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func zeroExtNto64(x []int, j8 uint8, j16 uint16, j32 uint32) int {
|
|
|
|
|
if len(x) < 22 {
|
|
|
|
|
return 0
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
if j8 >= 0 && j8 < 22 {
|
2019-09-22 13:39:16 +00:00
|
|
|
|
return x[j8] // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
cmd/compile: handle sign/zero extensions in prove, via update method
Array accesses with index types smaller than the machine word size may
involve a sign or zero extension of the index value before bounds
checking. Currently, this defeats prove because the facts about the
original index value don't flow through the sign/zero extension.
This CL fixes this by looking back through value-preserving sign/zero
extensions when adding facts via Update and, where appropriate, applying
the same facts using the pre-extension value. This fix is enhanced by
also looking back through value-preserving extensions within
ft.isNonNegative to infer whether the extended value is known to be
non-negative. Without this additional isNonNegative enhancement, this
logic is rendered significantly less effective by the limitation
discussed in the next paragraph.
In Update, the application of facts to pre-extension values is limited
to cases where the domain of the new fact is consistent with the type of
the pre-extension value. There may be cases where this cross-domain
passing of facts is valid, but distinguishing them from the invalid
cases is difficult for me to reason about and to implement.
Assessing which cases to allow requires details about the context and
inferences behind the fact being applied which are not available
within Update. Additional difficulty arises from the fact that the SSA
does not curently differentiate extensions added by the compiler for
indexing operations, extensions added by the compiler for implicit
conversions, or explicit extensions from the source.
Examples of some cases that would need to be filtered correctly for
cross-domain facts:
(1) A uint8 is zero-extended to int for indexing (a value-preserving
zeroExt). When, if ever, can signed domain facts learned about the int be
applied to the uint8?
(2) An int8 is sign-extended to int16 (value-preserving) for an equality
comparison. Equality comparison facts are currently always learned in both
the signed and unsigned domains. When, if ever, can the unsigned facts
learned about the int16, from the int16 != int16 comparison, be applied
to the original int8?
This is an alternative to CL 122695 and CL 174309. Compared to CL 122695,
this CL differs in that the facts added about the pre-extension value will
pass through the Update method, where additional inferences are processed
(e.g. fence-post implications, see #29964). CL 174309 is limited to bounds
checks, so is narrower in application, and makes the code harder to read.
Fixes #26292.
Fixes #29964.
Fixes #15074
Removes 238 bounds checks from std/cmd.
Change-Id: I1f87c32ee672bfb8be397b27eab7a4c2f304893f
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/174704
Run-TryBot: Zach Jones <zachj1@gmail.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Giovanni Bajo <rasky@develer.com>
2019-04-09 22:19:43 +00:00
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
if j16 >= 0 && j16 < 22 {
|
2019-09-22 13:39:16 +00:00
|
|
|
|
return x[j16] // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
cmd/compile: handle sign/zero extensions in prove, via update method
Array accesses with index types smaller than the machine word size may
involve a sign or zero extension of the index value before bounds
checking. Currently, this defeats prove because the facts about the
original index value don't flow through the sign/zero extension.
This CL fixes this by looking back through value-preserving sign/zero
extensions when adding facts via Update and, where appropriate, applying
the same facts using the pre-extension value. This fix is enhanced by
also looking back through value-preserving extensions within
ft.isNonNegative to infer whether the extended value is known to be
non-negative. Without this additional isNonNegative enhancement, this
logic is rendered significantly less effective by the limitation
discussed in the next paragraph.
In Update, the application of facts to pre-extension values is limited
to cases where the domain of the new fact is consistent with the type of
the pre-extension value. There may be cases where this cross-domain
passing of facts is valid, but distinguishing them from the invalid
cases is difficult for me to reason about and to implement.
Assessing which cases to allow requires details about the context and
inferences behind the fact being applied which are not available
within Update. Additional difficulty arises from the fact that the SSA
does not curently differentiate extensions added by the compiler for
indexing operations, extensions added by the compiler for implicit
conversions, or explicit extensions from the source.
Examples of some cases that would need to be filtered correctly for
cross-domain facts:
(1) A uint8 is zero-extended to int for indexing (a value-preserving
zeroExt). When, if ever, can signed domain facts learned about the int be
applied to the uint8?
(2) An int8 is sign-extended to int16 (value-preserving) for an equality
comparison. Equality comparison facts are currently always learned in both
the signed and unsigned domains. When, if ever, can the unsigned facts
learned about the int16, from the int16 != int16 comparison, be applied
to the original int8?
This is an alternative to CL 122695 and CL 174309. Compared to CL 122695,
this CL differs in that the facts added about the pre-extension value will
pass through the Update method, where additional inferences are processed
(e.g. fence-post implications, see #29964). CL 174309 is limited to bounds
checks, so is narrower in application, and makes the code harder to read.
Fixes #26292.
Fixes #29964.
Fixes #15074
Removes 238 bounds checks from std/cmd.
Change-Id: I1f87c32ee672bfb8be397b27eab7a4c2f304893f
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/174704
Run-TryBot: Zach Jones <zachj1@gmail.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Giovanni Bajo <rasky@develer.com>
2019-04-09 22:19:43 +00:00
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
if j32 >= 0 && j32 < 22 {
|
2019-09-22 13:39:16 +00:00
|
|
|
|
return x[j32] // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
cmd/compile: handle sign/zero extensions in prove, via update method
Array accesses with index types smaller than the machine word size may
involve a sign or zero extension of the index value before bounds
checking. Currently, this defeats prove because the facts about the
original index value don't flow through the sign/zero extension.
This CL fixes this by looking back through value-preserving sign/zero
extensions when adding facts via Update and, where appropriate, applying
the same facts using the pre-extension value. This fix is enhanced by
also looking back through value-preserving extensions within
ft.isNonNegative to infer whether the extended value is known to be
non-negative. Without this additional isNonNegative enhancement, this
logic is rendered significantly less effective by the limitation
discussed in the next paragraph.
In Update, the application of facts to pre-extension values is limited
to cases where the domain of the new fact is consistent with the type of
the pre-extension value. There may be cases where this cross-domain
passing of facts is valid, but distinguishing them from the invalid
cases is difficult for me to reason about and to implement.
Assessing which cases to allow requires details about the context and
inferences behind the fact being applied which are not available
within Update. Additional difficulty arises from the fact that the SSA
does not curently differentiate extensions added by the compiler for
indexing operations, extensions added by the compiler for implicit
conversions, or explicit extensions from the source.
Examples of some cases that would need to be filtered correctly for
cross-domain facts:
(1) A uint8 is zero-extended to int for indexing (a value-preserving
zeroExt). When, if ever, can signed domain facts learned about the int be
applied to the uint8?
(2) An int8 is sign-extended to int16 (value-preserving) for an equality
comparison. Equality comparison facts are currently always learned in both
the signed and unsigned domains. When, if ever, can the unsigned facts
learned about the int16, from the int16 != int16 comparison, be applied
to the original int8?
This is an alternative to CL 122695 and CL 174309. Compared to CL 122695,
this CL differs in that the facts added about the pre-extension value will
pass through the Update method, where additional inferences are processed
(e.g. fence-post implications, see #29964). CL 174309 is limited to bounds
checks, so is narrower in application, and makes the code harder to read.
Fixes #26292.
Fixes #29964.
Fixes #15074
Removes 238 bounds checks from std/cmd.
Change-Id: I1f87c32ee672bfb8be397b27eab7a4c2f304893f
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/174704
Run-TryBot: Zach Jones <zachj1@gmail.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Giovanni Bajo <rasky@develer.com>
2019-04-09 22:19:43 +00:00
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return 0
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Process fence-post implications through 32to64 extensions (issue #29964)
|
|
|
|
|
func signExt32to64Fence(x []int, j int32) int {
|
|
|
|
|
if x[j] != 0 {
|
|
|
|
|
return 1
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
2019-09-22 13:39:16 +00:00
|
|
|
|
if j > 0 && x[j-1] != 0 { // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
cmd/compile: handle sign/zero extensions in prove, via update method
Array accesses with index types smaller than the machine word size may
involve a sign or zero extension of the index value before bounds
checking. Currently, this defeats prove because the facts about the
original index value don't flow through the sign/zero extension.
This CL fixes this by looking back through value-preserving sign/zero
extensions when adding facts via Update and, where appropriate, applying
the same facts using the pre-extension value. This fix is enhanced by
also looking back through value-preserving extensions within
ft.isNonNegative to infer whether the extended value is known to be
non-negative. Without this additional isNonNegative enhancement, this
logic is rendered significantly less effective by the limitation
discussed in the next paragraph.
In Update, the application of facts to pre-extension values is limited
to cases where the domain of the new fact is consistent with the type of
the pre-extension value. There may be cases where this cross-domain
passing of facts is valid, but distinguishing them from the invalid
cases is difficult for me to reason about and to implement.
Assessing which cases to allow requires details about the context and
inferences behind the fact being applied which are not available
within Update. Additional difficulty arises from the fact that the SSA
does not curently differentiate extensions added by the compiler for
indexing operations, extensions added by the compiler for implicit
conversions, or explicit extensions from the source.
Examples of some cases that would need to be filtered correctly for
cross-domain facts:
(1) A uint8 is zero-extended to int for indexing (a value-preserving
zeroExt). When, if ever, can signed domain facts learned about the int be
applied to the uint8?
(2) An int8 is sign-extended to int16 (value-preserving) for an equality
comparison. Equality comparison facts are currently always learned in both
the signed and unsigned domains. When, if ever, can the unsigned facts
learned about the int16, from the int16 != int16 comparison, be applied
to the original int8?
This is an alternative to CL 122695 and CL 174309. Compared to CL 122695,
this CL differs in that the facts added about the pre-extension value will
pass through the Update method, where additional inferences are processed
(e.g. fence-post implications, see #29964). CL 174309 is limited to bounds
checks, so is narrower in application, and makes the code harder to read.
Fixes #26292.
Fixes #29964.
Fixes #15074
Removes 238 bounds checks from std/cmd.
Change-Id: I1f87c32ee672bfb8be397b27eab7a4c2f304893f
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/174704
Run-TryBot: Zach Jones <zachj1@gmail.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Giovanni Bajo <rasky@develer.com>
2019-04-09 22:19:43 +00:00
|
|
|
|
return 1
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return 0
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func zeroExt32to64Fence(x []int, j uint32) int {
|
|
|
|
|
if x[j] != 0 {
|
|
|
|
|
return 1
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
2019-09-22 13:39:16 +00:00
|
|
|
|
if j > 0 && x[j-1] != 0 { // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
|
cmd/compile: handle sign/zero extensions in prove, via update method
Array accesses with index types smaller than the machine word size may
involve a sign or zero extension of the index value before bounds
checking. Currently, this defeats prove because the facts about the
original index value don't flow through the sign/zero extension.
This CL fixes this by looking back through value-preserving sign/zero
extensions when adding facts via Update and, where appropriate, applying
the same facts using the pre-extension value. This fix is enhanced by
also looking back through value-preserving extensions within
ft.isNonNegative to infer whether the extended value is known to be
non-negative. Without this additional isNonNegative enhancement, this
logic is rendered significantly less effective by the limitation
discussed in the next paragraph.
In Update, the application of facts to pre-extension values is limited
to cases where the domain of the new fact is consistent with the type of
the pre-extension value. There may be cases where this cross-domain
passing of facts is valid, but distinguishing them from the invalid
cases is difficult for me to reason about and to implement.
Assessing which cases to allow requires details about the context and
inferences behind the fact being applied which are not available
within Update. Additional difficulty arises from the fact that the SSA
does not curently differentiate extensions added by the compiler for
indexing operations, extensions added by the compiler for implicit
conversions, or explicit extensions from the source.
Examples of some cases that would need to be filtered correctly for
cross-domain facts:
(1) A uint8 is zero-extended to int for indexing (a value-preserving
zeroExt). When, if ever, can signed domain facts learned about the int be
applied to the uint8?
(2) An int8 is sign-extended to int16 (value-preserving) for an equality
comparison. Equality comparison facts are currently always learned in both
the signed and unsigned domains. When, if ever, can the unsigned facts
learned about the int16, from the int16 != int16 comparison, be applied
to the original int8?
This is an alternative to CL 122695 and CL 174309. Compared to CL 122695,
this CL differs in that the facts added about the pre-extension value will
pass through the Update method, where additional inferences are processed
(e.g. fence-post implications, see #29964). CL 174309 is limited to bounds
checks, so is narrower in application, and makes the code harder to read.
Fixes #26292.
Fixes #29964.
Fixes #15074
Removes 238 bounds checks from std/cmd.
Change-Id: I1f87c32ee672bfb8be397b27eab7a4c2f304893f
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/174704
Run-TryBot: Zach Jones <zachj1@gmail.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Giovanni Bajo <rasky@develer.com>
2019-04-09 22:19:43 +00:00
|
|
|
|
return 1
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return 0
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
cmd/compile: make poset use sufficient conditions for OrderedOrEqual
When assessing whether A <= B, the poset's OrderedOrEqual has a passing
condition which permits A <= B, but is not sufficient to infer that A <= B.
This CL removes that incorrect passing condition.
Having identified that A and B are in the poset, the method will report that
A <= B if any of these three conditions are true:
(1) A and B are the same node in the poset.
- This means we know that A == B.
(2) There is a directed path, strict or not, from A -> B
- This means we know that, at least, A <= B, but A < B is possible.
(3) There is a directed path from B -> A, AND that path has no strict edges.
- This means we know that B <= A, but do not know that B < A.
In condition (3), we do not have enough information to say that A <= B, rather
we only know that B == A (which satisfies A <= B) is possible. The way I
understand it, a strict edge shows a known, strictly-ordered relation (<) but
the lack of a strict edge does not show the lack of a strictly-ordered relation.
The difference is highlighted by the example in #34802, where a bounds check is
incorrectly removed by prove, such that negative indexes into a slice
succeed:
n := make([]int, 1)
for i := -1; i <= 0; i++ {
fmt.Printf("i is %d\n", i)
n[i] = 1 // No Bounds check, program runs, assignment to n[-1] succeeds!!
}
When prove is checking the negative/failed branch from the bounds check at n[i],
in the signed domain we learn (0 > i || i >= len(n)). Because prove can't learn
the OR condition, we check whether we know that i is non-negative so we can
learn something, namely that i >= len(n). Prove uses the poset to check whether
we know that i is non-negative. At this point the poset holds the following
relations as a directed graph:
-1 <= i <= 0
-1 < 0
In poset.OrderedOrEqual, we are testing for 0 <= i. In this case, condition (3)
above is true because there is a non-strict path from i -> 0, and that path
does NOT have any strict edges. Because this condition is true, the poset
reports to prove that i is known to be >= 0. Knowing, incorrectly, that i >= 0,
prove learns from the failed bounds check that i >= len(n) in the signed domain.
When the slice, n, was created, prove learned that len(n) == 1. Because i is
also the induction variable for the loop, upon entering the loop, prove previously
learned that i is in [-1,0]. So when prove attempts to learn from the failed
bounds check, it finds the new fact, i > len(n), unsatisfiable given that it
previously learned that i <= 0 and len(n) = 1.
Fixes #34802
Change-Id: I235f4224bef97700c3aa5c01edcc595eb9f13afc
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/200759
Run-TryBot: Zach Jones <zachj1@gmail.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Giovanni Bajo <rasky@develer.com>
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
2019-10-11 15:04:47 +00:00
|
|
|
|
// Ensure that bounds checks with negative indexes are not incorrectly removed.
|
|
|
|
|
func negIndex() {
|
|
|
|
|
n := make([]int, 1)
|
|
|
|
|
for i := -1; i <= 0; i++ { // ERROR "Induction variable: limits \[-1,0\], increment 1$"
|
|
|
|
|
n[i] = 1
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
func negIndex2(n int) {
|
|
|
|
|
a := make([]int, 5)
|
|
|
|
|
b := make([]int, 5)
|
|
|
|
|
c := make([]int, 5)
|
|
|
|
|
for i := -1; i <= 0; i-- {
|
|
|
|
|
b[i] = i
|
|
|
|
|
n++
|
|
|
|
|
if n > 10 {
|
|
|
|
|
break
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
useSlice(a)
|
|
|
|
|
useSlice(c)
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-05-07 20:44:51 +00:00
|
|
|
|
// Check that prove is zeroing these right shifts of positive ints by bit-width - 1.
|
|
|
|
|
// e.g (Rsh64x64 <t> n (Const64 <typ.UInt64> [63])) && ft.isNonNegative(n) -> 0
|
|
|
|
|
func sh64(n int64) int64 {
|
|
|
|
|
if n < 0 {
|
|
|
|
|
return n
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return n >> 63 // ERROR "Proved Rsh64x64 shifts to zero"
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func sh32(n int32) int32 {
|
|
|
|
|
if n < 0 {
|
|
|
|
|
return n
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return n >> 31 // ERROR "Proved Rsh32x64 shifts to zero"
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func sh32x64(n int32) int32 {
|
|
|
|
|
if n < 0 {
|
|
|
|
|
return n
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return n >> uint64(31) // ERROR "Proved Rsh32x64 shifts to zero"
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func sh16(n int16) int16 {
|
|
|
|
|
if n < 0 {
|
|
|
|
|
return n
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return n >> 15 // ERROR "Proved Rsh16x64 shifts to zero"
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func sh64noopt(n int64) int64 {
|
|
|
|
|
return n >> 63 // not optimized; n could be negative
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// These cases are division of a positive signed integer by a power of 2.
|
|
|
|
|
// The opt pass doesnt have sufficient information to see that n is positive.
|
|
|
|
|
// So, instead, opt rewrites the division with a less-than-optimal replacement.
|
|
|
|
|
// Prove, which can see that n is nonnegative, cannot see the division because
|
|
|
|
|
// opt, an earlier pass, has already replaced it.
|
|
|
|
|
// The fix for this issue allows prove to zero a right shift that was added as
|
|
|
|
|
// part of the less-than-optimal reqwrite. That change by prove then allows
|
2021-02-17 01:48:21 +00:00
|
|
|
|
// lateopt to clean up all the unnecessary parts of the original division
|
2020-05-07 20:44:51 +00:00
|
|
|
|
// replacement. See issue #36159.
|
|
|
|
|
func divShiftClean(n int) int {
|
|
|
|
|
if n < 0 {
|
|
|
|
|
return n
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return n / int(8) // ERROR "Proved Rsh64x64 shifts to zero"
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func divShiftClean64(n int64) int64 {
|
|
|
|
|
if n < 0 {
|
|
|
|
|
return n
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return n / int64(16) // ERROR "Proved Rsh64x64 shifts to zero"
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func divShiftClean32(n int32) int32 {
|
|
|
|
|
if n < 0 {
|
|
|
|
|
return n
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return n / int32(16) // ERROR "Proved Rsh32x64 shifts to zero"
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-03-07 17:36:16 +00:00
|
|
|
|
//go:noinline
|
|
|
|
|
func useInt(a int) {
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
//go:noinline
|
|
|
|
|
func useSlice(a []int) {
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-02-19 11:14:42 +00:00
|
|
|
|
func main() {
|
|
|
|
|
}
|