Revert "PowerPC shrink-wrap support 3 of 3"

Submitted by Bernd Schmidt on Nov. 10, 2011, 1:29 p.m.

Details

Message ID 4EBBD1A0.3060101@codesourcery.com
State New
Headers show

Commit Message

Bernd Schmidt Nov. 10, 2011, 1:29 p.m.
On 11/10/11 13:14, Richard Guenther wrote:
> Fair enough.  You can count me as "one" then, and I'll defer to Bernd
> to either provide a fix or ack the revert.

I'm trying to track it down.

In 189r.outof_cfglayout, we have

(insn 31 33 35 3 (use (reg/i:SI 0 r0))
../../../../baseline-trunk/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/new_opv.cc:34 -1
     (nil))

;; Successors:  EXIT [100.0%]  (fallthru)
;; lr  out       0 [r0] 11 [fp] 13 [sp] 14 [lr] 25 [sfp] 26 [afp]
;; live  out     0 [r0] 11 [fp] 13 [sp] 25 [sfp] 26 [afp]

followed by a number of other basic blocks, so that looks wrong to me.
outof_cfglayout seems to assume that fallthrough edges to the exit block
are OK and don't need fixing up, and changing that seems nontrivial at
first glance.

The situation is first created during cfgcleanup in into_cfglayout. The
following patch makes the testcase compile by stopping the compiler from
moving the exit fallthru block around, but I've not checked whether it
has a negative effect on code quality. HP, can you run full tests?


Bernd

Comments

Michael Meissner Nov. 10, 2011, 11:50 p.m.
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 02:29:04PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 11/10/11 13:14, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > Fair enough.  You can count me as "one" then, and I'll defer to Bernd
> > to either provide a fix or ack the revert.
> 
> I'm trying to track it down.
> 
> In 189r.outof_cfglayout, we have
> 
> (insn 31 33 35 3 (use (reg/i:SI 0 r0))
> ../../../../baseline-trunk/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/new_opv.cc:34 -1
>      (nil))
> 
> ;; Successors:  EXIT [100.0%]  (fallthru)
> ;; lr  out       0 [r0] 11 [fp] 13 [sp] 14 [lr] 25 [sfp] 26 [afp]
> ;; live  out     0 [r0] 11 [fp] 13 [sp] 25 [sfp] 26 [afp]
> 
> followed by a number of other basic blocks, so that looks wrong to me.
> outof_cfglayout seems to assume that fallthrough edges to the exit block
> are OK and don't need fixing up, and changing that seems nontrivial at
> first glance.
> 
> The situation is first created during cfgcleanup in into_cfglayout. The
> following patch makes the testcase compile by stopping the compiler from
> moving the exit fallthru block around, but I've not checked whether it
> has a negative effect on code quality. HP, can you run full tests?

FWIW, I did bootstrap and make check with/without this patch, and it introduces
no regressions in the PowerPC, but I haven't look at the code generated.

Patch hide | download patch | download mbox

Index: ../baseline-trunk/gcc/cfgrtl.c
===================================================================
--- ../baseline-trunk/gcc/cfgrtl.c	(revision 181252)
+++ ../baseline-trunk/gcc/cfgrtl.c	(working copy)
@@ -2735,6 +2735,16 @@  cfg_layout_can_merge_blocks_p (basic_blo
   if (BB_PARTITION (a) != BB_PARTITION (b))
     return false;
 
+  /* If we would end up moving B's instructions, make sure it doesn't fall
+     through into the exit block, since we cannot recover from a fallthrough
+     edge into the exit block occurring in the middle of a function.  */
+  if (NEXT_INSN (BB_END (a)) != BB_HEAD (b))
+    {
+      edge e = find_fallthru_edge (b->succs);
+      if (e && e->dest == EXIT_BLOCK_PTR)
+	return false;
+    }
+
   /* There must be exactly one edge in between the blocks.  */
   return (single_succ_p (a)
 	  && single_succ (a) == b