Message ID | 2e0b9177-f8ce-d55a-d6bb-71eb89a9700d@redhat.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Series | PR tree-optimization/109274 - Don't interpret contents of a value_relation record. | expand |
Thanks.. Ive incorporated it into my commit too. Andrew On 3/24/23 11:15, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 11:08:54AM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote: >> Before floating point relations were added, we tried to sanitize >> value-relation records to not include non-sensensical records... ie x != x >> or x < x. Instead, we made a VREL_VARYING record with no operands. >> >> When floating point relation support was added, some of these were no longer >> non-sensical, AND we expanded the use of value_relation records into GORI >> shortly thereafter. >> >> As a result, this sanitization is no longer needed, nor desired. The Oracle >> does not create records with op1 == op2 already, so its only within GORI >> that these records can exist, and we shouldn't try to interpret them. >> >> The bug occurs because the "sanitized" records doesn't set op1 and op2, and >> changes the relation to VARYING.. and we expected the operands it to be set >> the way they were specified. We should not be setting a VREL_VARYING record >> if asked to set something else. In fact, we are missing some opportunities >> because we are trying to FP range-ops that op1 != op1 but its getting >> transformed into a VREL_VARYING record and not communicated properly. >> >> Currently bootstrapping on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu and assuming no regressions, >> OK for trunk? >> >> Andrew >> commit 1f02961b23976d35b10e2399708c6eb00632f9d6 >> Author: Andrew MacLeod <amacleod@redhat.com> >> Date: Fri Mar 24 09:18:33 2023 -0400 >> >> Don't interpret contents of a value_relation record. >> >> before floating point relations were added, we tried to sanitize >> value-relation records to not include non-sensensical records... ie >> x != x or x < x. INstead, we made a VREL_VARYING record with no > s/IN/In/ > >> operands. >> >> When floating point relations were supported, some of these were no >> longer non-sensical, AND we expanded the use of value_relation records >> into GORI. >> >> As a result, this sanitization is no longer needed. The Oracle >> does not create records with op1 == op2, so its only within GORI >> that these records can exist, and we shouldnt try to interpret them. > s/shouldnt/shouldn't/ >> >> The bug occurs because the "sanitized" records doesnt set op1 anmd op2, > s/doesnt/doesn't/ > >> but we have a record so expected it to be set. >> >> PR tree-optimization/109265 >> PR tree-optimization/109274 >> gcc/ >> * value-relation.h (value_relation::set_relation): Always create the >> record that is requested. >> >> gcc/testsuite/ >> * gcc.dg/pr109274.c: New. > LGTM, indeed with floating point a != a isn't nonsensical but basically > __builtin_isnan (a) check. > > I'll commit the Fortran testcase I've added in my version of the patch > incrementally when you commit. > > Jakub >
On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 11:52:30AM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> Thanks.. Ive incorporated it into my commit too.
Note, both my earlier version of the patch and your patch regress:
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp-float-3a.c scan-tree-dump-not evrp "link_error"
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp-float-4a.c scan-tree-dump-not evrp "link_error"
Jakub
commit 1f02961b23976d35b10e2399708c6eb00632f9d6 Author: Andrew MacLeod <amacleod@redhat.com> Date: Fri Mar 24 09:18:33 2023 -0400 Don't interpret contents of a value_relation record. before floating point relations were added, we tried to sanitize value-relation records to not include non-sensensical records... ie x != x or x < x. INstead, we made a VREL_VARYING record with no operands. When floating point relations were supported, some of these were no longer non-sensical, AND we expanded the use of value_relation records into GORI. As a result, this sanitization is no longer needed. The Oracle does not create records with op1 == op2, so its only within GORI that these records can exist, and we shouldnt try to interpret them. The bug occurs because the "sanitized" records doesnt set op1 anmd op2, but we have a record so expected it to be set. PR tree-optimization/109265 PR tree-optimization/109274 gcc/ * value-relation.h (value_relation::set_relation): Always create the record that is requested. gcc/testsuite/ * gcc.dg/pr109274.c: New. diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr109274.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr109274.c new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..5dbc0232f8e --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr109274.c @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@ +/* PR tree-optimization/109274 */ +/* { dg-do compile } */ +/* { dg-options "-O2 " } */ + +float a, b, c; +int d; +float bar (void); + +void +foo (void) +{ + a = 0 * -(2.0f * c); + d = a != a ? 0 : bar (); + b = c; +} + diff --git a/gcc/value-relation.h b/gcc/value-relation.h index 36a75862cc7..3177ecb1ad0 100644 --- a/gcc/value-relation.h +++ b/gcc/value-relation.h @@ -445,13 +445,6 @@ value_relation::set_relation (relation_kind r, tree n1, tree n2) { gcc_checking_assert (TREE_CODE (n1) == SSA_NAME && TREE_CODE (n2) == SSA_NAME); - if (n1 == n2 && r != VREL_EQ) - { - related = VREL_VARYING; - name1 = NULL_TREE; - name2 = NULL_TREE; - return; - } related = r; name1 = n1; name2 = n2;