cmd/compile: detect indvars that are bound by other indvars

prove wasn't able to detect induction variables that was bound
by another inducation variable. This happened because an indvar
is a Phi, and thus in case of a dependency, the loop bounding
condition looked as Phi < Phi. This triggered an existing
codepath that checked whether the upper bound was a Phi to
detect loop conditions written in reversed order respect to the
idiomatic way (eg: for i:=0; len(n)>i; i++).

To fix this, we call the indvar pattern matching on both operands
of the loop condition, so that the first operand that matches
will be treated as the indvar.

Updates #24660 (removes a boundcheck from Fannkuch)

Change-Id: Iade83d8deb54f14277ed3f2e37b190e1ed173d11
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/195220
Reviewed-by: David Chase <drchase@google.com>

src/cmd/compile/internal/ssa/loopbce.go

@@ -111,19 +111,27 @@ func findIndVar(f *Func) []indVar {
 			continue
 		}
 
-		// See if the arguments are reversed (i < len() <=> len() > i)
-		less := true
-		if max.Op == OpPhi {
-			ind, max = max, ind
-			less = false
-		}
-
 		// See if this is really an induction variable
+		less := true
 		min, inc, nxt := parseIndVar(ind)
 		if min == nil {
+			// We failed to parse the induction variable. Before punting, we want to check
+			// whether the control op was written with arguments in non-idiomatic order,
+			// so that we believe being "max" (the upper bound) is actually the induction
+			// variable itself. This would happen for code like:
+			//     for i := 0; len(n) > i; i++
+			min, inc, nxt = parseIndVar(max)
+			if min == nil {
+				// No recognied induction variable on either operand
 				continue
 			}
 
+			// Ok, the arguments were reversed. Swap them, and remember that we're
+			// looking at a ind >/>= loop (so the induction must be decrementing).
+			ind, max = max, ind
+			less = false
+		}
+
 		// Expect the increment to be a nonzero constant.
 		if inc.Op != OpConst64 {
 			continue

test/loopbce.go

@@ -257,6 +257,39 @@ func k5(a [100]int) [100]int {
 	return a
 }
 
+func d1(a [100]int) [100]int {
+	for i := 0; i < 100; i++ { // ERROR "Induction variable: limits \[0,100\), increment 1$"
+		for j := 0; j < i; j++ { // ERROR "Induction variable: limits \[0,\?\), increment 1$"
+			a[j] = 0   // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
+			a[j+1] = 0 // FIXME: this boundcheck should be eliminated
+			a[j+2] = 0
+		}
+	}
+	return a
+}
+
+func d2(a [100]int) [100]int {
+	for i := 0; i < 100; i++ { // ERROR "Induction variable: limits \[0,100\), increment 1$"
+		for j := 0; i > j; j++ { // ERROR "Induction variable: limits \[0,\?\), increment 1$"
+			a[j] = 0   // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
+			a[j+1] = 0 // FIXME: this boundcheck should be eliminated
+			a[j+2] = 0
+		}
+	}
+	return a
+}
+
+func d3(a [100]int) [100]int {
+	for i := 0; i <= 99; i++ { // ERROR "Induction variable: limits \[0,99\], increment 1$"
+		for j := 0; j <= i-1; j++ { // ERROR "Induction variable: limits \[0,\?\], increment 1$"
+			a[j] = 0   // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
+			a[j+1] = 0 // ERROR "Proved IsInBounds$"
+			a[j+2] = 0
+		}
+	}
+	return a
+}
+
 func nobce1() {
 	// tests overflow of max-min
 	a := int64(9223372036854774057)