This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Missed optimization in PRE?
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Bin.Cheng <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Richard Guenther
> <email@example.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Bin.Cheng <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Richard Guenther
>>> <email@example.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Bin.Cheng <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>>>> Following is the tree dump of 094t.pre for a test program.
>>>>> Question is loads of D.5375_12/D.5375_14 are redundant on path <bb2,
>>>>> bb7, bb5, bb6>,
>>>>> but why not lowered into basic block 3, where it is used.
>>>>> BTW, seems no tree pass handles this case currently.
>>>> tree-ssa-sink.c should do this.
>>> It does not work for me, I will double check and update soon.
>> Well, "should" as in, it's the place to do it. ?And certainly the pass can sink
>> loads, so this must be a missed optimization.
> Curiously, it is said explicitly that "We don't want to sink loads from memory."
> in tree-ssa-sink.c function statement_sink_location, and the condition is
> ?if (stmt_ends_bb_p (stmt)
> ? ? ?|| gimple_has_side_effects (stmt)
> ? ? ?|| gimple_has_volatile_ops (stmt)
> ? ? ?|| (gimple_vuse (stmt) && !gimple_vdef (stmt))
> <-----------------check load
> ? ? ?|| (cfun->has_local_explicit_reg_vars
> ? ? ? ? ?&& TYPE_MODE (TREE_TYPE (gimple_assign_lhs (stmt))) == BLKmode))
> ? ?return false;
> I haven't found any clue about this decision in ChangeLogs.
Ah, that's probably because usually you want to hoist loads and sink stores,
separating them (like a scheduler would do). We'd want to restrict sinking
of loads to sink into not post-dominated regions (thus where they end up
being executed less times).
> Best Regards.