===================================================================
@@ -274,31 +274,23 @@ propagate_tree_value_into_stmt (gimple_s
/*---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copy propagation
---------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
-/* During propagation, we keep chains of variables that are copies of
- one another. If variable X_i is a copy of X_j and X_j is a copy of
- X_k, COPY_OF will contain:
-
- COPY_OF[i].VALUE = X_j
- COPY_OF[j].VALUE = X_k
- COPY_OF[k].VALUE = X_k
-
- After propagation, the copy-of value for each variable X_i is
- converted into the final value by walking the copy-of chains and
- updating COPY_OF[i].VALUE to be the last element of the chain. */
+/* Lattice for copy-propagation. The lattice is initialized to
+ UNDEFINED (value == NULL) for SSA names that can become a copy
+ of something or VARYING (value == self) if not (see get_copy_of_val
+ and stmt_may_generate_copy). Other values make the name a COPY
+ of that value.
+
+ When visiting a statement or PHI node the lattice value for an
+ SSA name can transition from UNDEFINED to COPY to VARYING. */
struct prop_value_d {
/* Copy-of value. */
tree value;
};
-
typedef struct prop_value_d prop_value_t;
static prop_value_t *copy_of;
-/* Used in set_copy_of_val to determine if the last link of a copy-of
- chain has changed. */
-static tree *cached_last_copy_of;
-
/* Return true if this statement may generate a useful copy. */
@@ -346,82 +338,38 @@ get_copy_of_val (tree var)
return val;
}
+/* Return the variable VAR is a copy of or VAR if VAR isn't the result
+ of a copy. */
-/* Return last link in the copy-of chain for VAR. */
-
-static tree
-get_last_copy_of (tree var)
+static inline tree
+valueize_val (tree var)
{
- tree last;
- int i;
-
- /* Traverse COPY_OF starting at VAR until we get to the last
- link in the chain. Since it is possible to have cycles in PHI
- nodes, the copy-of chain may also contain cycles.
-
- To avoid infinite loops and to avoid traversing lengthy copy-of
- chains, we artificially limit the maximum number of chains we are
- willing to traverse.
-
- The value 5 was taken from a compiler and runtime library
- bootstrap and a mixture of C and C++ code from various sources.
- More than 82% of all copy-of chains were shorter than 5 links. */
-#define LIMIT 5
-
- last = var;
- for (i = 0; i < LIMIT; i++)
+ if (TREE_CODE (var) == SSA_NAME)
{
- tree copy = copy_of[SSA_NAME_VERSION (last)].value;
- if (copy == NULL_TREE || copy == last)
- break;
- last = copy;
+ tree val = get_copy_of_val (var)->value;
+ if (val)
+ return val;
}
-
- /* If we have reached the limit, then we are either in a copy-of
- cycle or the copy-of chain is too long. In this case, just
- return VAR so that it is not considered a copy of anything. */
- return (i < LIMIT ? last : var);
+ return var;
}
-
-/* Set FIRST to be the first variable in the copy-of chain for DEST.
- If DEST's copy-of value or its copy-of chain has changed, return
- true.
-
- MEM_REF is the memory reference where FIRST is stored. This is
- used when DEST is a non-register and we are copy propagating loads
- and stores. */
+/* Set VAL to be the copy of VAR. If that changed return true. */
static inline bool
-set_copy_of_val (tree dest, tree first)
+set_copy_of_val (tree var, tree val)
{
- unsigned int dest_ver = SSA_NAME_VERSION (dest);
- tree old_first, old_last, new_last;
+ unsigned int ver = SSA_NAME_VERSION (var);
+ tree old;
/* Set FIRST to be the first link in COPY_OF[DEST]. If that
changed, return true. */
- old_first = copy_of[dest_ver].value;
- copy_of[dest_ver].value = first;
+ old = copy_of[ver].value;
+ copy_of[ver].value = val;
- if (old_first != first)
+ if (old != val)
return true;
- /* If FIRST and OLD_FIRST are the same, we need to check whether the
- copy-of chain starting at FIRST ends in a different variable. If
- the copy-of chain starting at FIRST ends up in a different
- variable than the last cached value we had for DEST, then return
- true because DEST is now a copy of a different variable.
-
- This test is necessary because even though the first link in the
- copy-of chain may not have changed, if any of the variables in
- the copy-of chain changed its final value, DEST will now be the
- copy of a different variable, so we have to do another round of
- propagation for everything that depends on DEST. */
- old_last = cached_last_copy_of[dest_ver];
- new_last = get_last_copy_of (dest);
- cached_last_copy_of[dest_ver] = new_last;
-
- return (old_last != new_last);
+ return false;
}
@@ -431,50 +379,31 @@ static void
dump_copy_of (FILE *file, tree var)
{
tree val;
- sbitmap visited;
print_generic_expr (file, var, dump_flags);
-
if (TREE_CODE (var) != SSA_NAME)
return;
- visited = sbitmap_alloc (num_ssa_names);
- sbitmap_zero (visited);
- SET_BIT (visited, SSA_NAME_VERSION (var));
-
+ val = copy_of[SSA_NAME_VERSION (var)].value;
fprintf (file, " copy-of chain: ");
-
- val = var;
- print_generic_expr (file, val, 0);
+ print_generic_expr (file, var, 0);
fprintf (file, " ");
- while (copy_of[SSA_NAME_VERSION (val)].value)
+ if (!val)
+ fprintf (file, "[UNDEFINED]");
+ else if (val == var)
+ fprintf (file, "[NOT A COPY]");
+ else
{
fprintf (file, "-> ");
- val = copy_of[SSA_NAME_VERSION (val)].value;
print_generic_expr (file, val, 0);
fprintf (file, " ");
- if (TEST_BIT (visited, SSA_NAME_VERSION (val)))
- break;
- SET_BIT (visited, SSA_NAME_VERSION (val));
+ fprintf (file, "[COPY]");
}
-
- val = get_copy_of_val (var)->value;
- if (val == NULL_TREE)
- fprintf (file, "[UNDEFINED]");
- else if (val != var)
- fprintf (file, "[COPY]");
- else
- fprintf (file, "[NOT A COPY]");
-
- sbitmap_free (visited);
}
/* Evaluate the RHS of STMT. If it produces a valid copy, set the LHS
- value and store the LHS into *RESULT_P. If STMT generates more
- than one name (i.e., STMT is an aliased store), it is enough to
- store the first name in the VDEF list into *RESULT_P. After
- all, the names generated will be VUSEd in the same statements. */
+ value and store the LHS into *RESULT_P. */
static enum ssa_prop_result
copy_prop_visit_assignment (gimple stmt, tree *result_p)
@@ -485,7 +414,6 @@ copy_prop_visit_assignment (gimple stmt,
lhs = gimple_assign_lhs (stmt);
rhs = gimple_assign_rhs1 (stmt);
-
gcc_assert (gimple_assign_rhs_code (stmt) == SSA_NAME);
rhs_val = get_copy_of_val (rhs);
@@ -531,8 +459,8 @@ copy_prop_visit_cond_stmt (gimple stmt,
are predicates involving two SSA_NAMEs. */
if (TREE_CODE (op0) == SSA_NAME && TREE_CODE (op1) == SSA_NAME)
{
- op0 = get_last_copy_of (op0);
- op1 = get_last_copy_of (op1);
+ op0 = valueize_val (op0);
+ op1 = valueize_val (op1);
/* See if we can determine the predicate's value. */
if (dump_file && (dump_flags & TDF_DETAILS))
@@ -642,7 +570,6 @@ copy_prop_visit_phi_node (gimple phi)
{
fprintf (dump_file, "\nVisiting PHI node: ");
print_gimple_stmt (dump_file, phi, 0, dump_flags);
- fprintf (dump_file, "\n\n");
}
for (i = 0; i < gimple_phi_num_args (phi); i++)
@@ -670,7 +597,8 @@ copy_prop_visit_phi_node (gimple phi)
their loops and prevent coalescing opportunities. If the
value was loop invariant, it will be hoisted by LICM and
exposed for copy propagation. Not a problem for virtual
- operands though. */
+ operands though.
+ ??? The value will be always loop invariant. */
if (is_gimple_reg (lhs)
&& loop_depth_of_name (arg) > loop_depth_of_name (lhs))
{
@@ -678,11 +606,6 @@ copy_prop_visit_phi_node (gimple phi)
break;
}
- /* If the LHS appears in the argument list, ignore it. It is
- irrelevant as a copy. */
- if (arg == lhs || get_last_copy_of (arg) == lhs)
- continue;
-
if (dump_file && (dump_flags & TDF_DETAILS))
{
fprintf (dump_file, "\tArgument #%d: ", i);
@@ -692,30 +615,31 @@ copy_prop_visit_phi_node (gimple phi)
arg_val = get_copy_of_val (arg);
+ /* If we didn't visit the definition of arg yet treat it as
+ UNDEFINED. This also handles PHI arguments that are the
+ same as lhs. We'll come here again. */
+ if (!arg_val->value)
+ continue;
+
/* If the LHS didn't have a value yet, make it a copy of the
- first argument we find. Notice that while we make the LHS be
- a copy of the argument itself, we take the memory reference
- from the argument's value so that we can compare it to the
- memory reference of all the other arguments. */
+ first argument we find. */
if (phi_val.value == NULL_TREE)
{
- phi_val.value = arg_val->value ? arg_val->value : arg;
+ phi_val.value = arg_val->value;
continue;
}
/* If PHI_VAL and ARG don't have a common copy-of chain, then
- this PHI node cannot be a copy operation. Also, if we are
- copy propagating stores and these two arguments came from
- different memory references, they cannot be considered
- copies. */
- if (get_last_copy_of (phi_val.value) != get_last_copy_of (arg))
+ this PHI node cannot be a copy operation. */
+ if (phi_val.value != arg_val->value)
{
phi_val.value = lhs;
break;
}
}
- if (phi_val.value && may_propagate_copy (lhs, phi_val.value)
+ if (phi_val.value
+ && may_propagate_copy (lhs, phi_val.value)
&& set_copy_of_val (lhs, phi_val.value))
retval = (phi_val.value != lhs) ? SSA_PROP_INTERESTING : SSA_PROP_VARYING;
else
@@ -723,7 +647,7 @@ copy_prop_visit_phi_node (gimple phi)
if (dump_file && (dump_flags & TDF_DETAILS))
{
- fprintf (dump_file, "\nPHI node ");
+ fprintf (dump_file, "PHI node ");
dump_copy_of (dump_file, lhs);
fprintf (dump_file, "\nTelling the propagator to ");
if (retval == SSA_PROP_INTERESTING)
@@ -739,9 +663,7 @@ copy_prop_visit_phi_node (gimple phi)
}
-/* Initialize structures used for copy propagation. PHIS_ONLY is true
- if we should only consider PHI nodes as generating copy propagation
- opportunities. */
+/* Initialize structures used for copy propagation. */
static void
init_copy_prop (void)
@@ -750,8 +672,6 @@ init_copy_prop (void)
copy_of = XCNEWVEC (prop_value_t, num_ssa_names);
- cached_last_copy_of = XCNEWVEC (tree, num_ssa_names);
-
FOR_EACH_BB (bb)
{
gimple_stmt_iterator si;
@@ -773,7 +693,8 @@ init_copy_prop (void)
Otherwise, this may move loop variant variables outside of
their loops and prevent coalescing opportunities. If the
value was loop invariant, it will be hoisted by LICM and
- exposed for copy propagation. */
+ exposed for copy propagation.
+ ??? This doesn't make sense. */
if (stmt_ends_bb_p (stmt))
prop_set_simulate_again (stmt, true);
else if (stmt_may_generate_copy (stmt)
@@ -790,8 +711,6 @@ init_copy_prop (void)
FOR_EACH_SSA_TREE_OPERAND (def, stmt, iter, SSA_OP_ALL_DEFS)
if (!prop_simulate_again_p (stmt))
set_copy_of_val (def, def);
- else
- cached_last_copy_of[SSA_NAME_VERSION (def)] = def;
}
/* In loop-closed SSA form do not copy-propagate through
@@ -820,8 +739,6 @@ init_copy_prop (void)
if (!prop_simulate_again_p (phi))
set_copy_of_val (def, def);
- else
- cached_last_copy_of[SSA_NAME_VERSION (def)] = def;
}
}
}
@@ -855,8 +772,6 @@ fini_copy_prop (void)
|| copy_of[i].value == var)
continue;
- copy_of[i].value = get_last_copy_of (var);
-
/* In theory the points-to solution of all members of the
copy chain is their intersection. For now we do not bother
to compute this but only make sure we do not lose points-to
@@ -872,7 +787,6 @@ fini_copy_prop (void)
substitute_and_fold (get_value, NULL, true);
- free (cached_last_copy_of);
free (copy_of);
}
@@ -908,81 +822,7 @@ fini_copy_prop (void)
through edges marked executable by the propagation engine. So,
when visiting statement #2 for the first time, we will only look at
the first argument (a_24) and optimistically assume that its value
- is the copy of a_24 (x_1).
-
- The problem with this approach is that it may fail to discover copy
- relations in PHI cycles. Instead of propagating copy-of
- values, we actually propagate copy-of chains. For instance:
-
- A_3 = B_1;
- C_9 = A_3;
- D_4 = C_9;
- X_i = D_4;
-
- In this code fragment, COPY-OF (X_i) = { D_4, C_9, A_3, B_1 }.
- Obviously, we are only really interested in the last value of the
- chain, however the propagator needs to access the copy-of chain
- when visiting PHI nodes.
-
- To represent the copy-of chain, we use the array COPY_CHAINS, which
- holds the first link in the copy-of chain for every variable.
- If variable X_i is a copy of X_j, which in turn is a copy of X_k,
- the array will contain:
-
- COPY_CHAINS[i] = X_j
- COPY_CHAINS[j] = X_k
- COPY_CHAINS[k] = X_k
-
- Keeping copy-of chains instead of copy-of values directly becomes
- important when visiting PHI nodes. Suppose that we had the
- following PHI cycle, such that x_52 is already considered a copy of
- x_53:
-
- 1 x_54 = PHI <x_53, x_52>
- 2 x_53 = PHI <x_898, x_54>
-
- Visit #1: x_54 is copy-of x_53 (because x_52 is copy-of x_53)
- Visit #2: x_53 is copy-of x_898 (because x_54 is a copy of x_53,
- so it is considered irrelevant
- as a copy).
- Visit #1: x_54 is copy-of nothing (x_53 is a copy-of x_898 and
- x_52 is a copy of x_53, so
- they don't match)
- Visit #2: x_53 is copy-of nothing
-
- This problem is avoided by keeping a chain of copies, instead of
- the final copy-of value. Propagation will now only keep the first
- element of a variable's copy-of chain. When visiting PHI nodes,
- arguments are considered equal if their copy-of chains end in the
- same variable. So, as long as their copy-of chains overlap, we
- know that they will be a copy of the same variable, regardless of
- which variable that may be).
-
- Propagation would then proceed as follows (the notation a -> b
- means that a is a copy-of b):
-
- Visit #1: x_54 = PHI <x_53, x_52>
- x_53 -> x_53
- x_52 -> x_53
- Result: x_54 -> x_53. Value changed. Add SSA edges.
-
- Visit #1: x_53 = PHI <x_898, x_54>
- x_898 -> x_898
- x_54 -> x_53
- Result: x_53 -> x_898. Value changed. Add SSA edges.
-
- Visit #2: x_54 = PHI <x_53, x_52>
- x_53 -> x_898
- x_52 -> x_53 -> x_898
- Result: x_54 -> x_898. Value changed. Add SSA edges.
-
- Visit #2: x_53 = PHI <x_898, x_54>
- x_898 -> x_898
- x_54 -> x_898
- Result: x_53 -> x_898. Value didn't change. Stable state
-
- Once the propagator stabilizes, we end up with the desired result
- x_53 and x_54 are both copies of x_898. */
+ is the copy of a_24 (x_1). */
static unsigned int
execute_copy_prop (void)