This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Functions that are CSEable but not pure
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Richard Guenther
> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Jason Merrill <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On 10/04/2012 09:07 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>> Ugh. Especially with the above (you can DCE those calls) makes this
>>> severly mis-specified ... and any implementation error-prone (look what
>>> mess our losely defined 'malloc' attribute opened ...).
>>> I thought of a testcase like
>>> int *p = get_me ();
>>> .. = *p;
>>> int *q = get_me ();
>>> .. = *q;
>>> and get_me allocating/initalizing and returning a singleton.
>>> But you tell me it's more complicated and get_me () needs to
>>> be a barrier for any load/store (as it may modify arbitrary memory,
>>> but only on the "first" call).
>> Yes, because the initialization is user-written code.
>>> I think that "may modify arbitrary memory" isn't going to fly and
>>> my answer would be, better don't try to optimize anything here,
>>> at least not in generic terms. How would you handle this in
>>> the alias oracle? How would you then make CSE recognize
>>> two functions return the same value and are CSEable?
>> For aliasing purposes, the call is like a call to a normal function. For CSE
>> purposes, we want to recognize identical calls and combine them. I don't
>> know the GCC bits well enough to be any more specific.
>>> Can you come up with a short but complete testcase illustrating the issue
>>> better (preferably C, so I don't need to read-in magic points where
>> int init_count;
>> int data;
>> void init()
>> static int initialized;
>> if (!initialized)
>> data = ++init_count;
>> initialized = 1;
>> inline int *get_me() __attribute ((pure));
>> inline int *get_me()
>> init ();
>> return &data;
>> int sink;
>> int main()
>> sink = init_count;
>> int *p = get_me();
>> if (init_count != 1)
>> int *q = get_me();
>> if (init_count != 1)
>> return *p + *q;
>> On this testcase, gcc -O2 doesn't reload init_count after the call to get_me
>> because it thinks that the call can't have modified init_count. I want the
>> compiler to know that it is safe to discard the redundant assignment, but
>> not make assumptions about memory.
> But isn't it a fact that it _cannot_ modify init_count? If the second call
> is CSEable then it cannot have side-effects that are observable at
> the call site. Is the following an example you would consider to fall
> under your CSEing?
> int init_count;
> int data;
> int initialized;
> void init()
> if (!initialized)
> data = ++init_count;
> initialized = 1;
> inline int *get_me() __attribute ((pure));
> inline int *get_me()
> init ();
> return &data;
> int sink;
> int main()
> sink = init_count;
> int *p = get_me();
> if (init_count != 1)
> initialized = 0;
> int *q = get_me();
> if (init_count != 2)
> return *p + *q;
> ? If so, then why can we assume get_me returns the same pointer even here?
sink = init_count;
int *p = get_me();
if (init_count != 1)
is this required to not abort? p is unused and with 'pure' you'd DCE the call.
That is, I am confused about the distinction you seem to make between
the static variable 'initialized' and the global 'init_count'. You seem to
imply that the attribute would mean that we can CSE side-effects to
global memory but that those side-effects may be value-changing!
In practice for any CSE implementation this hypotetical "cse-side-effects"
attribute would only allow us to CSE if there are no intermediate
side-effects between two such calls, and as soon as the second get_me
call would be CSEd we'd also CSE the init_count value (which you
didn't want to CSE?!)
Still confused ;)
>> On 10/04/2012 08:59 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:> On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at
>> 08:56:03AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>> Sure, but I thought you want to inline the wrapper function as soon as
>>> possible. Or do you want to keep it as some kind of builtin that gets
>>> expanded during expansion to the test and call?
>> Ah, I see your point; if get_me is inlined we end up with two calls to init,
>> so it would be good to mark init with the same hypothetical attribute.