diff mbox

[C++] Avoid exponential compile time in cp_fold_function (PR c++/70847, PR c++/71330, PR c++/71393)

Message ID 20160603173204.GL7387@tucnak.redhat.com
State New
Headers show

Commit Message

Jakub Jelinek June 3, 2016, 5:32 p.m. UTC 
Hi!

As mentioned in these PRs, if there are many nested SAVE_EXPRs or
TARGET_EXPRs and many of those appear two or more times in the tree,
cp_fold_function has huge compile time requirements.  Even when each
cp_fold should use a cache and once something has been folded, will
return the same tree again and again, even just walking the same huge trees
over and over and doing the cache lookups over and over takes lots of time.

The following patch fixes it by making sure that during a single
cp_fold_function, we recurse on the subtrees of each cp_fold returned tree
once, not more.

Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?

2016-06-03  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>
	    Patrick Palka  <ppalka@gcc.gnu.org>

	PR c++/70847
	PR c++/71330
	PR c++/71393
	* cp-gimplify.c (cp_fold_r): Set *walk_subtrees = 0 and return NULL
	right after cp_fold call if cp_fold has returned the same stmt
	already in some earlier cp_fold_r call.
	(cp_fold_function): Add pset automatic variable, pass its address
	to cp_walk_tree.

	* g++.dg/opt/pr70847.C: New test.
	* g++.dg/ubsan/pr70847.C: New test.
	* g++.dg/ubsan/pr71393.C: New test.


	Jakub

Comments

Jason Merrill June 6, 2016, 7:42 p.m. UTC | #1 
OK.

Jason
diff mbox

Patch

--- gcc/cp/cp-gimplify.c.jj	2016-06-02 18:35:18.000000000 +0200
+++ gcc/cp/cp-gimplify.c	2016-06-03 15:23:47.098894612 +0200
@@ -940,6 +940,17 @@  cp_fold_r (tree *stmt_p, int *walk_subtr
 
   *stmt_p = stmt = cp_fold (*stmt_p);
 
+  if (((hash_set<tree> *) data)->add (stmt))
+    {
+      /* Don't walk subtrees of stmts we've already walked once, otherwise
+	 we can have exponential complexity with e.g. lots of nested
+	 SAVE_EXPRs or TARGET_EXPRs.  cp_fold uses a cache and will return
+	 always the same tree, which the first time cp_fold_r has been
+	 called on it had the subtrees walked.  */
+      *walk_subtrees = 0;
+      return NULL;
+    }
+
   code = TREE_CODE (stmt);
   if (code == OMP_FOR || code == OMP_SIMD || code == OMP_DISTRIBUTE
       || code == OMP_TASKLOOP || code == CILK_FOR || code == CILK_SIMD
@@ -997,7 +1008,8 @@  cp_fold_r (tree *stmt_p, int *walk_subtr
 void
 cp_fold_function (tree fndecl)
 {
-  cp_walk_tree (&DECL_SAVED_TREE (fndecl), cp_fold_r, NULL, NULL);
+  hash_set<tree> pset;
+  cp_walk_tree (&DECL_SAVED_TREE (fndecl), cp_fold_r, &pset, NULL);
 }
 
 /* Perform any pre-gimplification lowering of C++ front end trees to
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/opt/pr70847.C.jj	2016-06-03 11:44:13.507026612 +0200
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/opt/pr70847.C	2016-06-03 11:43:22.000000000 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ 
+// PR c++/70847
+// { dg-do compile }
+
+struct D { virtual D& f(); };
+
+void
+g()
+{
+  D d;
+  d.f().f().f().f().f().f().f().f().f().f().f().f().f().f().f().f().f().f().f().f().f().f().f().f().f().f();
+}
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ubsan/pr70847.C.jj	2016-06-03 11:47:13.862624882 +0200
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ubsan/pr70847.C	2016-06-03 11:43:22.000000000 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ 
+// PR c++/70847
+// { dg-do compile }
+
+struct D { virtual D& f(); };
+
+void
+g()
+{
+  D d;
+  d.f().f().f().f().f().f().f().f().f().f().f().f().f().f().f().f().f().f().f().f().f().f().f().f().f().f();
+}
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ubsan/pr71393.C.jj	2016-06-03 11:35:55.675656051 +0200
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ubsan/pr71393.C	2016-06-03 11:35:26.000000000 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ 
+// PR c++/71393
+// { dg-do compile }
+// { dg-options "-fsanitize=undefined" }
+
+struct B { B &operator << (long); };
+struct A { A (); long a, b, c, d, e, f; };
+
+A::A ()
+{
+  B q;
+  q << 0 << a << 0 << b << 0 << (b / a) << 0 << c << 0 << (c / a) << 0
+    << d << 0 << (d / a) << 0 << e << 0 << (e / a) << 0 << f << 0
+    << (f / a) << 0;
+}