Issue 168580
Summary Missed optimization with a loop that multiplies counter by 2 until overflow
Labels new issue
Assignees
Reporter Explorer09
    Test code

```c
#include <stdbool.h>
#include <stddef.h>
#include <stdint.h>

extern void subroutine(size_t x);

void func1a(void) {
    size_t x = 1;
    while (true) {
        subroutine(x);
        if (x > SIZE_MAX / 2)
 break;
        x *= 2;
    }
}

void func1b(void) {
    size_t x = 1;
 while (true) {
        subroutine(x);
        if (__builtin_add_overflow(x, x, &x))
            break;
    }
}

void func1c(void) {
    size_t x = 1;
    while (true) {
 subroutine(x);
        if (__builtin_mul_overflow(x, (size_t)2, &x))
 break;
    }
}
```

x86-64 Clang 21.1.0 with `-Os` option produces:

```assembly
func1a:
        pushq   %rbx
        movl    $1, %ebx
.LBB2_1:
        movq    %rbx, %rdi
        callq   subroutine@PLT
 testq   %rbx, %rbx
        leaq    (%rbx,%rbx), %rbx
        jns .LBB2_1
        popq    %rbx
        retq

func1b:
        pushq %rbx
        movl    $1, %ebx
.LBB3_1:
        movq    %rbx, %rdi
 callq   subroutine@PLT
        addq    %rbx, %rbx
        jae     .LBB3_1
 popq    %rbx
        retq
```

(`func1c` assembly omitted because it's the same as `func1a`)
([Compiler Explorer link](https://godbolt.org/z/Y5dsPnehd))

While the conditional `(x > SIZE_MAX / 2)` can be converted into a "test if sign bit is set" check, it can miss that `x` would multiply by 2 afterward, so the code can be smaller by checking the carry bit after addition.

The expected result is `func1a` and `func1c` both optimize to `func1b`.

Note that I have also tested with AArch64 Clang and it has the similar problem.
_______________________________________________
llvm-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs

Reply via email to