| Message ID | CAO2gOZXkaogJftpdDJMocQR2saNbKuMvbnT6+RuANnGnbSKQZQ@mail.gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
This one should be submitted and discussed in trunk. thanks, David On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Dehao Chen <dehao@google.com> wrote: > I've prepared a patch check for args for indirect call value profiling. > > Testing on-going. Is it ok for trunk if testing is good? > > Thanks, > Dehao > > gcc/ChangeLog: > 2013-06-06 Dehao Chen <dehao@google.com> > > * tree-flow.h (gimple_check_call_matching_types): Add new argument. > * gimple-low.c (gimple_check_call_matching_types): Likewise. > (gimple_check_call_args): Likewise. > * value-prof.c (check_ic_target): Likewise. > * ipa-inline.c (early_inliner): Likewise. > * ipa-prop.c (update_indirect_edges_after_inlining): Likewise. > * cgraph.c (cgraph_create_edge_1): Likewise. > (cgraph_make_edge_direct): Likewise. > > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com> wrote: >> gimple_check_call_matching_types is called by check_ic_target. Instead >> of moving the check out of this guard function, may be enhancing the >> interface to allow it to guard with different strictness? >> >> David >> >> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 8:10 AM, Dehao Chen <dehao@google.com> wrote: >>> Hi, Martin, >>> >>> Yes, your patch can fix my case. Thanks a lot for the fix. >>> >>> With the fix, value profiling will still promote the wrong indirect >>> call target. Though it will not be inlining, but it results in an >>> additional check. How about in check_ic_target, after calling >>> gimple_check_call_matching_types, we also check if number of args >>> match number of params in target->symbol.decl? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Dehao >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 7:11 AM, Martin Jambor <mjambor@suse.cz> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 05:19:02PM -0700, Dehao Chen wrote: >>>> > attached is a testcase that would cause problem when source has changed: >>>> > >>>> > $ g++ test.cc -O2 -fprofile-generate -DOLD >>>> > $ ./a.out >>>> > $ g++ test.cc -O2 -fprofile-use >>>> > test.cc:34:1: internal compiler error: in operator[], at vec.h:815 >>>> > } >>>> > ^ >>>> > 0x512740 vec<tree_node*, va_heap, vl_embed>::operator[](unsigned int) >>>> > ../../gcc/vec.h:815 >>>> > 0x512740 vec<tree_node*, va_heap, vl_ptr>::operator[](unsigned int) >>>> > ../../gcc/vec.h:1244 >>>> > 0xf24464 vec<tree_node*, va_heap, vl_embed>::operator[](unsigned int) >>>> > ../../gcc/vec.h:815 >>>> > 0xf24464 vec<tree_node*, va_heap, vl_ptr>::operator[](unsigned int) >>>> > ../../gcc/vec.h:1244 >>>> > 0xf24464 ipa_get_indirect_edge_target_1 >>>> > ../../gcc/ipa-cp.c:1535 >>>> > 0x971b9a estimate_edge_devirt_benefit >>>> > ../../gcc/ipa-inline-analysis.c:2757 >>>> >>>> Hm, this seems rather like an omission in ipa_get_indirect_edge_target_1. >>>> Since it is called also from inlining, we can have parameter count >>>> mismatches... and in fact in non-virtual paths of that function we do >>>> check that we don't. Because all callers have to pass known_vals >>>> describing all formal parameters of the inline tree root, we should >>>> apply the fix below (I've only just started running a bootstrap and >>>> testsuite on x86_64, though). >>>> >>>> OTOH, while I understand that FDO can change inlining sufficiently so >>>> that this error occurs, IMHO this should not be caused by outdated >>>> profiles but there is somewhere a parameter mismatch in the source. >>>> >>>> Dehao, can you please check that this patch helps? >>>> >>>> Richi, if it does and the patch passes bootstrap and tests, is it OK >>>> for trunk and 4.8 branch? >>>> >>>> Thanks and sorry for the trouble, >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> >>>> 2013-06-06 Martin Jambor <mjambor@suse.cz> >>>> >>>> * ipa-cp.c (ipa_get_indirect_edge_target_1): Check that param_index is >>>> within bounds at the beginning of the function. >>>> >>>> Index: src/gcc/ipa-cp.c >>>> =================================================================== >>>> --- src.orig/gcc/ipa-cp.c >>>> +++ src/gcc/ipa-cp.c >>>> @@ -1481,7 +1481,8 @@ ipa_get_indirect_edge_target_1 (struct c >>>> tree otr_type; >>>> tree t; >>>> >>>> - if (param_index == -1) >>>> + if (param_index == -1 >>>> + || known_vals.length () <= (unsigned int) param_index) >>>> return NULL_TREE; >>>> >>>> if (!ie->indirect_info->polymorphic) >>>> @@ -1516,8 +1517,7 @@ ipa_get_indirect_edge_target_1 (struct c >>>> t = NULL; >>>> } >>>> else >>>> - t = (known_vals.length () > (unsigned int) param_index >>>> - ? known_vals[param_index] : NULL); >>>> + t = NULL; >>>> >>>> if (t && >>>> TREE_CODE (t) == ADDR_EXPR
Index: gcc/gimple-low.c =================================================================== --- gcc/gimple-low.c (revision 199780) +++ gcc/gimple-low.c (working copy) @@ -204,7 +204,7 @@ struct gimple_opt_pass pass_lower_cf = return false. */ static bool -gimple_check_call_args (gimple stmt, tree fndecl) +gimple_check_call_args (gimple stmt, tree fndecl, bool args_count_match) { tree parms, p; unsigned int i, nargs; @@ -243,6 +243,8 @@ static bool && !fold_convertible_p (DECL_ARG_TYPE (p), arg))) return false; } + if (args_count_match && p) + return false; } else if (parms) { @@ -271,11 +273,13 @@ static bool } /* Verify if the type of the argument and lhs of CALL_STMT matches - that of the function declaration CALLEE. + that of the function declaration CALLEE. If ARGS_COUNT_MATCH is + true, the arg count needs to be the same. If we cannot verify this or there is a mismatch, return false. */ bool -gimple_check_call_matching_types (gimple call_stmt, tree callee) +gimple_check_call_matching_types (gimple call_stmt, tree callee, + bool args_count_match) { tree lhs; @@ -285,7 +289,7 @@ bool && !useless_type_conversion_p (TREE_TYPE (DECL_RESULT (callee)), TREE_TYPE (lhs)) && !fold_convertible_p (TREE_TYPE (DECL_RESULT (callee)), lhs)) - || !gimple_check_call_args (call_stmt, callee)) + || !gimple_check_call_args (call_stmt, callee, args_count_match)) return false; return true; } Index: gcc/ipa-inline.c =================================================================== --- gcc/ipa-inline.c (revision 199780) +++ gcc/ipa-inline.c (working copy) @@ -2054,8 +2054,8 @@ early_inliner (void) es->call_stmt_time = estimate_num_insns (edge->call_stmt, &eni_time_weights); if (edge->callee->symbol.decl - && !gimple_check_call_matching_types (edge->call_stmt, - edge->callee->symbol.decl)) + && !gimple_check_call_matching_types ( + edge->call_stmt, edge->callee->symbol.decl, false)) edge->call_stmt_cannot_inline_p = true; } timevar_pop (TV_INTEGRATION); Index: gcc/cgraph.c =================================================================== --- gcc/cgraph.c (revision 199780) +++ gcc/cgraph.c (working copy) @@ -816,7 +816,8 @@ cgraph_create_edge_1 (struct cgraph_node *caller, pop_cfun (); if (call_stmt && callee && callee->symbol.decl - && !gimple_check_call_matching_types (call_stmt, callee->symbol.decl)) + && !gimple_check_call_matching_types (call_stmt, callee->symbol.decl, + false)) edge->call_stmt_cannot_inline_p = true; else edge->call_stmt_cannot_inline_p = false; @@ -1016,7 +1017,8 @@ cgraph_make_edge_direct (struct cgraph_edge *edge, if (edge->call_stmt) edge->call_stmt_cannot_inline_p - = !gimple_check_call_matching_types (edge->call_stmt, callee->symbol.decl); + = !gimple_check_call_matching_types (edge->call_stmt, callee->symbol.decl, + false); /* We need to re-determine the inlining status of the edge. */ initialize_inline_failed (edge); Index: gcc/tree-flow.h =================================================================== --- gcc/tree-flow.h (revision 199780) +++ gcc/tree-flow.h (working copy) @@ -464,7 +464,7 @@ extern void record_vars_into (tree, tree); extern void record_vars (tree); extern bool gimple_seq_may_fallthru (gimple_seq); extern bool gimple_stmt_may_fallthru (gimple); -extern bool gimple_check_call_matching_types (gimple, tree); +extern bool gimple_check_call_matching_types (gimple, tree, bool); /* In tree-ssa.c */ Index: gcc/value-prof.c =================================================================== --- gcc/value-prof.c (revision 199780) +++ gcc/value-prof.c (working copy) @@ -1231,7 +1231,7 @@ static bool check_ic_target (gimple call_stmt, struct cgraph_node *target) { location_t locus; - if (gimple_check_call_matching_types (call_stmt, target->symbol.decl)) + if (gimple_check_call_matching_types (call_stmt, target->symbol.decl, true)) return true; locus = gimple_location (call_stmt); Index: gcc/ipa-prop.c =================================================================== --- gcc/ipa-prop.c (revision 199780) +++ gcc/ipa-prop.c (working copy) @@ -2468,8 +2468,9 @@ update_indirect_edges_after_inlining (struct cgrap new_direct_edge->indirect_inlining_edge = 1; if (new_direct_edge->call_stmt) new_direct_edge->call_stmt_cannot_inline_p - = !gimple_check_call_matching_types (new_direct_edge->call_stmt, - new_direct_edge->callee->symbol.decl); + = !gimple_check_call_matching_types ( + new_direct_edge->call_stmt, + new_direct_edge->callee->symbol.decl, false); if (new_edges) { new_edges->safe_push (new_direct_edge);
I've prepared a patch check for args for indirect call value profiling. Testing on-going. Is it ok for trunk if testing is good? Thanks, Dehao gcc/ChangeLog: 2013-06-06 Dehao Chen <dehao@google.com> * tree-flow.h (gimple_check_call_matching_types): Add new argument. * gimple-low.c (gimple_check_call_matching_types): Likewise. (gimple_check_call_args): Likewise. * value-prof.c (check_ic_target): Likewise. * ipa-inline.c (early_inliner): Likewise. * ipa-prop.c (update_indirect_edges_after_inlining): Likewise. * cgraph.c (cgraph_create_edge_1): Likewise. (cgraph_make_edge_direct): Likewise. On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com> wrote: > gimple_check_call_matching_types is called by check_ic_target. Instead > of moving the check out of this guard function, may be enhancing the > interface to allow it to guard with different strictness? > > David > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 8:10 AM, Dehao Chen <dehao@google.com> wrote: >> Hi, Martin, >> >> Yes, your patch can fix my case. Thanks a lot for the fix. >> >> With the fix, value profiling will still promote the wrong indirect >> call target. Though it will not be inlining, but it results in an >> additional check. How about in check_ic_target, after calling >> gimple_check_call_matching_types, we also check if number of args >> match number of params in target->symbol.decl? >> >> Thanks, >> Dehao >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 7:11 AM, Martin Jambor <mjambor@suse.cz> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 05:19:02PM -0700, Dehao Chen wrote: >>> > attached is a testcase that would cause problem when source has changed: >>> > >>> > $ g++ test.cc -O2 -fprofile-generate -DOLD >>> > $ ./a.out >>> > $ g++ test.cc -O2 -fprofile-use >>> > test.cc:34:1: internal compiler error: in operator[], at vec.h:815 >>> > } >>> > ^ >>> > 0x512740 vec<tree_node*, va_heap, vl_embed>::operator[](unsigned int) >>> > ../../gcc/vec.h:815 >>> > 0x512740 vec<tree_node*, va_heap, vl_ptr>::operator[](unsigned int) >>> > ../../gcc/vec.h:1244 >>> > 0xf24464 vec<tree_node*, va_heap, vl_embed>::operator[](unsigned int) >>> > ../../gcc/vec.h:815 >>> > 0xf24464 vec<tree_node*, va_heap, vl_ptr>::operator[](unsigned int) >>> > ../../gcc/vec.h:1244 >>> > 0xf24464 ipa_get_indirect_edge_target_1 >>> > ../../gcc/ipa-cp.c:1535 >>> > 0x971b9a estimate_edge_devirt_benefit >>> > ../../gcc/ipa-inline-analysis.c:2757 >>> >>> Hm, this seems rather like an omission in ipa_get_indirect_edge_target_1. >>> Since it is called also from inlining, we can have parameter count >>> mismatches... and in fact in non-virtual paths of that function we do >>> check that we don't. Because all callers have to pass known_vals >>> describing all formal parameters of the inline tree root, we should >>> apply the fix below (I've only just started running a bootstrap and >>> testsuite on x86_64, though). >>> >>> OTOH, while I understand that FDO can change inlining sufficiently so >>> that this error occurs, IMHO this should not be caused by outdated >>> profiles but there is somewhere a parameter mismatch in the source. >>> >>> Dehao, can you please check that this patch helps? >>> >>> Richi, if it does and the patch passes bootstrap and tests, is it OK >>> for trunk and 4.8 branch? >>> >>> Thanks and sorry for the trouble, >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> >>> 2013-06-06 Martin Jambor <mjambor@suse.cz> >>> >>> * ipa-cp.c (ipa_get_indirect_edge_target_1): Check that param_index is >>> within bounds at the beginning of the function. >>> >>> Index: src/gcc/ipa-cp.c >>> =================================================================== >>> --- src.orig/gcc/ipa-cp.c >>> +++ src/gcc/ipa-cp.c >>> @@ -1481,7 +1481,8 @@ ipa_get_indirect_edge_target_1 (struct c >>> tree otr_type; >>> tree t; >>> >>> - if (param_index == -1) >>> + if (param_index == -1 >>> + || known_vals.length () <= (unsigned int) param_index) >>> return NULL_TREE; >>> >>> if (!ie->indirect_info->polymorphic) >>> @@ -1516,8 +1517,7 @@ ipa_get_indirect_edge_target_1 (struct c >>> t = NULL; >>> } >>> else >>> - t = (known_vals.length () > (unsigned int) param_index >>> - ? known_vals[param_index] : NULL); >>> + t = NULL; >>> >>> if (t && >>> TREE_CODE (t) == ADDR_EXPR