Message ID | ZYVGEs0RMZelMjez@tucnak |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Series | lower-bitint: Handle unreleased SSA_NAMEs from earlier passes gracefully [PR113102] | expand |
> Am 22.12.2023 um 09:17 schrieb Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>: > > Hi! > > On the following testcase earlier passes leave around an unreleased > SSA_NAME - non-GIMPLE_NOP SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT which isn't in any bb. > The following patch makes bitint lowering resistent against those, > the first hunk is where we'd for certain kinds of stmts try to ammend > them and the latter is where we'd otherwise try to remove them, > neither of which works. The other loops over all SSA_NAMEs either > already also check gimple_bb (SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT (s)) or it doesn't > matter that much if we process it or not (worst case it means e.g. > the pass wouldn't return early even when it otherwise could). > > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk? Ok > 2023-12-22 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> > > PR tree-optimization/113102 > * gimple-lower-bitint.cc (gimple_lower_bitint): Handle unreleased > large/huge _BitInt SSA_NAMEs. > > * gcc.dg/bitint-59.c: New test. > > --- gcc/gimple-lower-bitint.cc.jj 2023-12-21 13:28:56.953120687 +0100 > +++ gcc/gimple-lower-bitint.cc 2023-12-21 14:08:00.199704511 +0100 > @@ -5827,7 +5827,7 @@ gimple_lower_bitint (void) > tree_code rhs_code; > /* Unoptimize certain constructs to simpler alternatives to > avoid having to lower all of them. */ > - if (is_gimple_assign (stmt)) > + if (is_gimple_assign (stmt) && gimple_bb (stmt)) > switch (rhs_code = gimple_assign_rhs_code (stmt)) > { > default: > @@ -6690,6 +6690,11 @@ gimple_lower_bitint (void) > release_ssa_name (s); > continue; > } > + if (gimple_bb (g) == NULL) > + { > + release_ssa_name (s); > + continue; > + } > if (gimple_code (g) != GIMPLE_ASM) > { > gimple_stmt_iterator gsi = gsi_for_stmt (g); > --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/bitint-59.c.jj 2023-12-21 14:12:01.860350727 +0100 > +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/bitint-59.c 2023-12-21 14:11:54.766449179 +0100 > @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ > +/* PR tree-optimization/113102 */ > +/* { dg-do compile { target bitint } } */ > +/* { dg-options "-std=c23 -O2" } */ > + > +unsigned x; > + > +#if __BITINT_MAXWIDTH__ >= 191 > +void > +foo (void) > +{ > + unsigned _BitInt(191) b = x; > + ~(b >> x) % 3; > +} > +#endif > > Jakub >
--- gcc/gimple-lower-bitint.cc.jj 2023-12-21 13:28:56.953120687 +0100 +++ gcc/gimple-lower-bitint.cc 2023-12-21 14:08:00.199704511 +0100 @@ -5827,7 +5827,7 @@ gimple_lower_bitint (void) tree_code rhs_code; /* Unoptimize certain constructs to simpler alternatives to avoid having to lower all of them. */ - if (is_gimple_assign (stmt)) + if (is_gimple_assign (stmt) && gimple_bb (stmt)) switch (rhs_code = gimple_assign_rhs_code (stmt)) { default: @@ -6690,6 +6690,11 @@ gimple_lower_bitint (void) release_ssa_name (s); continue; } + if (gimple_bb (g) == NULL) + { + release_ssa_name (s); + continue; + } if (gimple_code (g) != GIMPLE_ASM) { gimple_stmt_iterator gsi = gsi_for_stmt (g); --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/bitint-59.c.jj 2023-12-21 14:12:01.860350727 +0100 +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/bitint-59.c 2023-12-21 14:11:54.766449179 +0100 @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +/* PR tree-optimization/113102 */ +/* { dg-do compile { target bitint } } */ +/* { dg-options "-std=c23 -O2" } */ + +unsigned x; + +#if __BITINT_MAXWIDTH__ >= 191 +void +foo (void) +{ + unsigned _BitInt(191) b = x; + ~(b >> x) % 3; +} +#endif