Message ID | 20130415142832.GI12880@tucnak.redhat.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
FWIW, I agree with Jakub's fix. Thanks! Bill On Mon, 2013-04-15 at 16:28 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > record_increment failed to verify that initializer is usable, which it is > only if cand_stmt is an addition (CAND_ADD can be e.g. even on a cast of > addition to some type of the same precision etc.) and one of the operands is > c->base_expr (because then the other operand necessarily has to be the rest, > but the code was only checking one of the operands, but cand_stmt e.g. can > be a sum of two SSA_NAMEs where each of those adds some multiply of one of > base_expr operands and some multiply of the c->stride. If we set > initializer to randomly chosen operand of such stmt, while we'll have the > right multiply of c->stride, the base_expr might be wrong. > > Fixed thusly, bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for > trunk/4.8? > > 2013-04-15 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> > > PR tree-optimization/56962 > * gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c (record_increment): Only set > initializer if gimple_assign_rhs_code is {,POINTER_}PLUS_EXPR and > either rhs1 or rhs2 is equal to c->base_expr. > > * gcc.c-torture/execute/pr56962.c: New test. > > --- gcc/gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c.jj 2013-01-11 09:02:50.000000000 +0100 > +++ gcc/gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c 2013-04-15 11:59:46.668463873 +0200 > @@ -1829,16 +1829,20 @@ record_increment (slsr_cand_t c, double_ > if (c->kind == CAND_ADD > && c->index == increment > && (increment.sgt (double_int_one) > - || increment.slt (double_int_minus_one))) > + || increment.slt (double_int_minus_one)) > + && (gimple_assign_rhs_code (c->cand_stmt) == PLUS_EXPR > + || gimple_assign_rhs_code (c->cand_stmt) == POINTER_PLUS_EXPR)) > { > - tree t0; > + tree t0 = NULL_TREE; > tree rhs1 = gimple_assign_rhs1 (c->cand_stmt); > tree rhs2 = gimple_assign_rhs2 (c->cand_stmt); > if (operand_equal_p (rhs1, c->base_expr, 0)) > t0 = rhs2; > - else > + else if (operand_equal_p (rhs2, c->base_expr, 0)) > t0 = rhs1; > - if (SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT (t0) && gimple_bb (SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT (t0))) > + if (t0 > + && SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT (t0) > + && gimple_bb (SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT (t0))) > { > incr_vec[incr_vec_len].initializer = t0; > incr_vec[incr_vec_len++].init_bb > --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr56962.c.jj 2013-04-15 12:09:24.781355085 +0200 > +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr56962.c 2013-04-15 12:09:19.985381802 +0200 > @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@ > +/* PR tree-optimization/56962 */ > + > +extern void abort (void); > +long long v[144]; > + > +__attribute__((noinline, noclone)) void > +bar (long long *x) > +{ > + if (x != &v[29]) > + abort (); > +} > + > +__attribute__((noinline, noclone)) void > +foo (long long *x, long y, long z) > +{ > + long long a, b, c; > + a = x[z * 4 + y * 3]; > + b = x[z * 5 + y * 3]; > + c = x[z * 5 + y * 4]; > + x[y * 4] = a; > + bar (&x[z * 5 + y]); > + x[z * 5 + y * 5] = b + c; > +} > + > +int > +main () > +{ > + foo (v, 24, 1); > + return 0; > +} > > Jakub >
On Mon, 15 Apr 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > record_increment failed to verify that initializer is usable, which it is > only if cand_stmt is an addition (CAND_ADD can be e.g. even on a cast of > addition to some type of the same precision etc.) and one of the operands is > c->base_expr (because then the other operand necessarily has to be the rest, > but the code was only checking one of the operands, but cand_stmt e.g. can > be a sum of two SSA_NAMEs where each of those adds some multiply of one of > base_expr operands and some multiply of the c->stride. If we set > initializer to randomly chosen operand of such stmt, while we'll have the > right multiply of c->stride, the base_expr might be wrong. > > Fixed thusly, bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for > trunk/4.8? Ok. Thanks, Richard. > 2013-04-15 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> > > PR tree-optimization/56962 > * gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c (record_increment): Only set > initializer if gimple_assign_rhs_code is {,POINTER_}PLUS_EXPR and > either rhs1 or rhs2 is equal to c->base_expr. > > * gcc.c-torture/execute/pr56962.c: New test. > > --- gcc/gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c.jj 2013-01-11 09:02:50.000000000 +0100 > +++ gcc/gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c 2013-04-15 11:59:46.668463873 +0200 > @@ -1829,16 +1829,20 @@ record_increment (slsr_cand_t c, double_ > if (c->kind == CAND_ADD > && c->index == increment > && (increment.sgt (double_int_one) > - || increment.slt (double_int_minus_one))) > + || increment.slt (double_int_minus_one)) > + && (gimple_assign_rhs_code (c->cand_stmt) == PLUS_EXPR > + || gimple_assign_rhs_code (c->cand_stmt) == POINTER_PLUS_EXPR)) > { > - tree t0; > + tree t0 = NULL_TREE; > tree rhs1 = gimple_assign_rhs1 (c->cand_stmt); > tree rhs2 = gimple_assign_rhs2 (c->cand_stmt); > if (operand_equal_p (rhs1, c->base_expr, 0)) > t0 = rhs2; > - else > + else if (operand_equal_p (rhs2, c->base_expr, 0)) > t0 = rhs1; > - if (SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT (t0) && gimple_bb (SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT (t0))) > + if (t0 > + && SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT (t0) > + && gimple_bb (SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT (t0))) > { > incr_vec[incr_vec_len].initializer = t0; > incr_vec[incr_vec_len++].init_bb > --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr56962.c.jj 2013-04-15 12:09:24.781355085 +0200 > +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr56962.c 2013-04-15 12:09:19.985381802 +0200 > @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@ > +/* PR tree-optimization/56962 */ > + > +extern void abort (void); > +long long v[144]; > + > +__attribute__((noinline, noclone)) void > +bar (long long *x) > +{ > + if (x != &v[29]) > + abort (); > +} > + > +__attribute__((noinline, noclone)) void > +foo (long long *x, long y, long z) > +{ > + long long a, b, c; > + a = x[z * 4 + y * 3]; > + b = x[z * 5 + y * 3]; > + c = x[z * 5 + y * 4]; > + x[y * 4] = a; > + bar (&x[z * 5 + y]); > + x[z * 5 + y * 5] = b + c; > +} > + > +int > +main () > +{ > + foo (v, 24, 1); > + return 0; > +} > > Jakub > >
--- gcc/gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c.jj 2013-01-11 09:02:50.000000000 +0100 +++ gcc/gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c 2013-04-15 11:59:46.668463873 +0200 @@ -1829,16 +1829,20 @@ record_increment (slsr_cand_t c, double_ if (c->kind == CAND_ADD && c->index == increment && (increment.sgt (double_int_one) - || increment.slt (double_int_minus_one))) + || increment.slt (double_int_minus_one)) + && (gimple_assign_rhs_code (c->cand_stmt) == PLUS_EXPR + || gimple_assign_rhs_code (c->cand_stmt) == POINTER_PLUS_EXPR)) { - tree t0; + tree t0 = NULL_TREE; tree rhs1 = gimple_assign_rhs1 (c->cand_stmt); tree rhs2 = gimple_assign_rhs2 (c->cand_stmt); if (operand_equal_p (rhs1, c->base_expr, 0)) t0 = rhs2; - else + else if (operand_equal_p (rhs2, c->base_expr, 0)) t0 = rhs1; - if (SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT (t0) && gimple_bb (SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT (t0))) + if (t0 + && SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT (t0) + && gimple_bb (SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT (t0))) { incr_vec[incr_vec_len].initializer = t0; incr_vec[incr_vec_len++].init_bb --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr56962.c.jj 2013-04-15 12:09:24.781355085 +0200 +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr56962.c 2013-04-15 12:09:19.985381802 +0200 @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@ +/* PR tree-optimization/56962 */ + +extern void abort (void); +long long v[144]; + +__attribute__((noinline, noclone)) void +bar (long long *x) +{ + if (x != &v[29]) + abort (); +} + +__attribute__((noinline, noclone)) void +foo (long long *x, long y, long z) +{ + long long a, b, c; + a = x[z * 4 + y * 3]; + b = x[z * 5 + y * 3]; + c = x[z * 5 + y * 4]; + x[y * 4] = a; + bar (&x[z * 5 + y]); + x[z * 5 + y * 5] = b + c; +} + +int +main () +{ + foo (v, 24, 1); + return 0; +}