Message ID | 4DF9A526.9060906@codesourcery.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Hi, > Consider the following example. > > extern unsigned int foo (int*) __attribute__((pure)); > unsigned int > tr (int array[], int n) > { > unsigned int i; > unsigned int sum = 0; > for (i = 0; i < n; i++) > sum += foo (&array[i]); > return sum; > } > > For 32-bit pointers, the analysis in infer_loop_bounds_from_pointer_arith > currently concludes that the range of valid &array[i] is &array[0x0] to > &array[0x3fffffff], meaning 0x40000000 distinct values. > This implies that i < n is executed at most 0x40000001 times, and i < n > cannot be eliminated by an 32-bit iterator with step 4, since that one has > only 0x40000000 distinct values. this reasoning seems slightly inaccurate to me: the loop is typically translated as if (n > 0) { i = 0; start: sum += foo (&array[i]); i++; if (i < n) goto start; } This means that if the array access is performed <= x times, then the exit condition of the loop is tested <= x times (not counting the copied header). This could be exploited to fix the problem as well. > The patch reasons that NULL cannot be used or produced by pointer > arithmetic, and that we can exclude the possibility of the NULL pointer in the > range. So the range of valid &array[i] is &array[0] to &array[0x3ffffffe], > meaning 0x3fffffff distinct values. > This implies that i < n is executed at most 0x40000000 times and i < n can be > eliminated. Sounds reasonable to me. > The patch implements this new limitation by changing the (low, high, step) > triplet in infer_loop_bounds_from_pointer_arith from (0x0, 0xffffffff, 0x4) > to (0x4, 0xffffffff, 0x4). At least in principle, the variable could have initial value 0x1, so this is a bit incorrect. (alignment of the memory reference, 0xffffffff, 0x4) should work, though. > I'm not too happy about the test for C-like language: ptrdiff_type_node != > NULL_TREE, but I'm not sure how else to test for this. The middle-end operations in general follow the C semantics, unless explicitly specified otherwise (e.g. language-specific alias analysis rules, ...). So, I think you can drop this test. Zdenek
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 06/16/11 00:39, Tom de Vries wrote: > Hi, > > Consider the following example. > > extern unsigned int foo (int*) __attribute__((pure)); > unsigned int > tr (int array[], int n) > { > unsigned int i; > unsigned int sum = 0; > for (i = 0; i < n; i++) > sum += foo (&array[i]); > return sum; > } > > For 32-bit pointers, the analysis in infer_loop_bounds_from_pointer_arith > currently concludes that the range of valid &array[i] is &array[0x0] to > &array[0x3fffffff], meaning 0x40000000 distinct values. > This implies that i < n is executed at most 0x40000001 times, and i < n > cannot be eliminated by an 32-bit iterator with step 4, since that one has > only 0x40000000 distinct values. > > The patch reasons that NULL cannot be used or produced by pointer > arithmetic, and that we can exclude the possibility of the NULL pointer in the > range. So the range of valid &array[i] is &array[0] to &array[0x3ffffffe], > meaning 0x3fffffff distinct values. > This implies that i < n is executed at most 0x40000000 times and i < n can be > eliminated. > > The patch implements this new limitation by changing the (low, high, step) > triplet in infer_loop_bounds_from_pointer_arith from (0x0, 0xffffffff, 0x4) > to (0x4, 0xffffffff, 0x4). > > I'm not too happy about the test for C-like language: ptrdiff_type_node != > NULL_TREE, but I'm not sure how else to test for this. > > Bootstrapped and reg-tested on x86_64. > > I will sent the adapted test cases in a separate email. Interesting. I'd never thought about the generation/use angle to prove a pointer was non-null. ISTM we could use that same logic to infer that more pointers are non-null in extract_range_from_binary_expr. Interested in tackling that improvement, obviously as an independent patch? jeff -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJN+n0cAAoJEBRtltQi2kC7aRYH/1jyc0xmWEnzkxaMxdn9t5+p asGN79nl8BSPifZapn2R7brEt9uQQNT6oAe/4wlCr0qf5f0FwMUV8U2QH8uMuez3 gqO+PuqcF6dSxR5+qskgljSjjLndxdFuaiN1Lb95jR9Wg3l/Nv6NGpjdgAaWHiVk cmiuwAkVGSB46TGMMVnumFWTbXbXAK7udSk1PBDUZlY8Da+B9M2eGX9MuaPBNWvd YSHRpkVVFAlyJIpwdtAojE6T2korZQyHAmYqiuArBPYxAN7cLuV8Gl4AagzyHcVz Epkg7e0ayS1PnnQuH1JpAKGKH1DSlOmqo69JJpuL/kyaBh5lo4wu32RWHm/aGkY= =fESM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
diff -u gcc/tree-ssa-loop-niter.c (working copy) gcc/tree-ssa-loop-niter.c (working copy) --- gcc/tree-ssa-loop-niter.c (working copy) +++ gcc/tree-ssa-loop-niter.c (working copy) @@ -2875,6 +2875,16 @@ low = lower_bound_in_type (type, type); high = upper_bound_in_type (type, type); + /* In C, pointer arithmetic p + 1 cannot use a NULL pointer, and p - 1 cannot + produce a NULL pointer. The contrary would mean NULL points to an object, + while NULL is supposed to compare unequal with the address of all objects. + Furthermore, p + 1 cannot produce a NULL pointer and p - 1 cannot use a + NULL pointer since that would mean wrapping, which we assume here not to + happen. So, we can exclude NULL from the valid range of pointer + arithmetic. */ + if (ptrdiff_type_node != NULL_TREE && int_cst_value (low) == 0) + low = fold_build2 (PLUS_EXPR, TREE_TYPE (low), low, step); + record_nonwrapping_iv (loop, base, step, stmt, low, high, false, true); }