Skip to content

[mlir] fix IntegerRangeAnalysis::staticallyNonNegative #134003

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

[mlir] fix IntegerRangeAnalysis::staticallyNonNegative #134003

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
3 changes: 3 additions & 0 deletions mlir/lib/Analysis/DataFlow/IntegerRangeAnalysis.cpp
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -43,6 +43,9 @@ LogicalResult staticallyNonNegative(DataFlowSolver &solver, Value v) {
if (!result || result->getValue().isUninitialized())
return failure();
const ConstantIntRanges &range = result->getValue().getValue();
if (!range.umin().getBitWidth() || !range.umax().getBitWidth() ||
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I feel like a decent contract for this function would be to assert that isa<IntegerType>(v.getType()), but I don't have a strong opinion here

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think the general shake of the solution is to seal all the isUninitialized()s for a new isUnknown() or isNonInteger()

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

... wow that's a lot of autocorrect-os

Hopefully the overall message got through

The other thing that'd be needed there is to make sure that whenever we've visiting a value, we always make the result something other than "unknown"

!range.smin().getBitWidth() || !range.smax().getBitWidth())
return false;
return success(range.smin().isNonNegative());
}

Expand Down
Loading