This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH][20/n] Remove GENERIC stmt combining from SCCVN


> Ok, so it's folding
> 
> x == 127 ? .gnat_rcheck_CE_Overflow_Check ("overflow_sum3.adb", 14);, 0 :
> (short_short_integer) x + 1
> 
> <= 127
> 
> where op0 (the COND_EXPR) does not have TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS set but
> its operand 1 has:
> 
> (gdb) p debug_tree (op0)
>  <cond_expr 0x7ffff68cbf90
>     type <integer_type 0x7ffff6572dc8 short_short_integer sizes-gimplified
> public visited QI
>         size <integer_cst 0x7ffff68ccca8 constant visited 8>
>         unit size <integer_cst 0x7ffff68cccc0 constant visited 1>
>         align 8 symtab 0 alias set -1 canonical type 0x7ffff6572dc8
> precision 8 min <integer_cst 0x7ffff656a678 -128> max <integer_cst
> 0x7ffff656a6c0 127> context <translation_unit_decl 0x7ffff7ff81e0 D.24> RM
> size <integer_cst 0x7ffff68ccca8 8>
>         chain <type_decl 0x7ffff6900b48 short_short_integer>>
> 
>     arg 0 <eq_expr 0x7ffff6573938
> ...
>     arg 1 <compound_expr 0x7ffff65739b0 type <integer_type 0x7ffff6572dc8
> short_short_integer>
>         side-effects
> ...
>     arg 2 <plus_expr 0x7ffff6573910 type <integer_type 0x7ffff6572dc8
> short_short_integer>
> ...
> 
> that's unexpected to the code generated by genmatch and I don't see
> how omit_one_operand would handle that either.

The old code was propagating the comparison inside the arms of COND_EXPR
(fold_binary_op_with_conditional_arg) before applying the transformation:

      if ((short_short_integer) x == 127 ? .gnat_rcheck_CE_Overflow_Check 
("overflow_sum3.adb", 14);, 1 : 1)

The new code does the reverse, but the old behavior can be easily restored:

Index: fold-const.c
===================================================================
--- fold-const.c        (revision 227729)
+++ fold-const.c        (working copy)
@@ -9025,10 +9025,6 @@ fold_binary_loc (location_t loc,
       && tree_swap_operands_p (arg0, arg1, true))
     return fold_build2_loc (loc, swap_tree_comparison (code), type, op1, 
op0);
 
-  tem = generic_simplify (loc, code, type, op0, op1);
-  if (tem)
-    return tem;
-
   /* ARG0 is the first operand of EXPR, and ARG1 is the second operand.
 
      First check for cases where an arithmetic operation is applied to a
@@ -9114,6 +9110,10 @@ fold_binary_loc (location_t loc,
        }
     }
 
+  tem = generic_simplify (loc, code, type, op0, op1);
+  if (tem)
+    return tem;
+
   switch (code)
     {
     case MEM_REF:

is sufficient to fix the regression.

> The COND_EXPR is originally built with TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS set but:
> 
> Hardware watchpoint 7: *$43
> 
> Old value = 65595
> New value = 59
> emit_check (gnu_cond=<eq_expr 0x7ffff6573938>,
>     gnu_expr=<plus_expr 0x7ffff6573910>, reason=10, gnat_node=2320)
>     at /space/rguenther/src/svn/trunk/gcc/ada/gcc-interface/trans.c:8823
> 8823      return gnu_result;
> $45 = 0
> 
> so the Ada frontend resets the flag (improperly?):
> 
> emit_check (gnu_cond=<eq_expr 0x7ffff6573938>,
>     gnu_expr=<plus_expr 0x7ffff6573910>, reason=10, gnat_node=2320)
>     at /space/rguenther/src/svn/trunk/gcc/ada/gcc-interface/trans.c:8823
> 8823      return gnu_result;
> $45 = 0
> (gdb) l
> 8818
> 8819      /* GNU_RESULT has side effects if and only if GNU_EXPR has:
> 8820         we don't need to evaluate it just for the check.  */
> 8821      TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS (gnu_result) = TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS (gnu_expr);
> 8822
> 8823      return gnu_result;
> 8824    }

That's old code and the comment makes it quite clear why this is done though.

-- 
Eric Botcazou


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]