Papers › Precondition Inference for Peephole Optimizations in LLVM

Precondition Inference for Peephole Optimizations in LLVM

18 Nov 2016arXiv:1611.05980links table onlyarchive 2025-07-28

David Menendez, Santosh Nagarakatte

The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.

Peephole optimizations are a common source of compiler bugs. Compiler developers typically transform an incorrect peephole optimization into a valid one by strengthening the precondition. This process is challenging and tedious. This paper proposes ALIVE-INFER, a data-driven approach that infers preconditions for peephole optimizations expressed in Alive. ALIVE-INFER generates positive and negative examples for an optimization, enumerates predicates on-demand, and learns a set of predicates that separate the positive and negative examples. ALIVE-INFER repeats this process until it finds a precondition that ensures the validity of the optimization. ALIVE-INFER reports both a weakest precondition and a set of succinct partial preconditions to the developer. Our prototype generates preconditions that are weaker than LLVM's preconditions for 73 optimizations in the Alive suite. We also demonstrate the applicability of this technique to generalize 54 optimization patterns generated by Souper, an LLVM~IR--based superoptimizer.

PaperPDFCode

Code

rutgers-apl/alive-nj officialmentioned in papermentioned on GitHub report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections