This is the mail archive of the 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: Typecasting information in MEM[...] GIMPLE

On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Uday P. Khedker <> wrote:
> Jakub Jelinek wrote on Monday 27 July 2015 03:50 PM:
>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 03:35:45PM +0530, Uday Khedker wrote:
>>> We are interested in extracting the type of a tree node that appears
>>> within
>>> MEM_REF.
>>> Given a C program:
>>>      struct node * * pvar;
>>>      struct node qvar;
>>>      pvar = (struct node * *) malloc (sizeof (struct node *));
>>>      *pvar = &qvar;
>>> It is transformed into the following GIMPLE code:
>>>      void * * pvar.1;
>>>      void * pvar.0;
>>>      pvar.0_1 = malloc (4);
>>>      pvar = pvar.0_1;
>>>      MEM[(struct node * *)pvar.0_1] = &qvar;
>>> We wish to discover the type of the argument of MEM[...] in the last
>>> GIMPLE statement. We can see from the GIMPLE dump that the argument's
>>> type is "struct node * *". How do we extract this from the tree
>>> definition of MEM[...]?
>>> We speculate the following solution: Given a variable var (whose tree is
>>> tree_of_var) and a tree, say t,
>>>      if (TREE_CODE(t) is MEM_REF) and (TREE_OPERAND(t, 0) is tree_of_var)
>>>      then
>>>          the type of the expression inside MEM[...] of tree t is
>>>          POINTER_TYPE to TREE_TYPE(t).
>>> Is is correct? It is general enough?
>> A MEM_REF has 3 possibly distinct types.  If TREE_CODE (t) == MEM_REF,
>> one type, TREE_TYPE (t), is the type of the access, struct node *
>> in the above case.  Another type is one for alias analysis purposes,
>> stored in TREE_TYPE (TREE_OPERAND (t, 1)), this one will be
>> struct node ** in your case.  And yet another type is the type of the
>> pointer, TREE_TYPE (TREE_OPERAND (t, 0)), which usually is the same
>> as pointer to TREE_TYPE (t) initially, but as most of pointer conversions
>> are regarded as useless, after optimization passes you often can end up
>> there with very different type.
> In our case, TREE_TYPE (TREE_OPERAND (t, 0)) as extracted from the tree node
> turns out to be "void *" which is same as the original type of the variable
> pvar.0.
> From your reply, can I conclude that because of the type cast operation, I
> can ignore the TREE_TYPE (TREE_OPERAND (t, 0)) recorded in the tree and
> instead take it to be pointer to TREE_TYPE(t)?
>> The type for alias analysis purposes can also differ from pointer to
>> TREE_TYPE (t), consider e.g.
>>    short *p = ...;
>>    int i = 26;
>>    memcpy (p, &i, sizeof (int));
>> which is folded (depending on alignment behavior) as MEM_REF[(int *)p] =
>> 26;
>> and here TREE_TYPE (t) will be int, TREE_TYPE (TREE_OPERAND (t, 0)) likely
>> short * and TREE_TYPE (TREE_OPERAND (t, 1)) likely char * (ref_all).
> Here the TREE_TYPE (TREE_OPERAND (t, 0)) suggested by you is consistent with
> our observation (here it is "short *" which is same as the original type).
> The question is: can we safely conclude that for the purpose of this
> operation (i.e. in this GIMPLE statement), p is being viewed as pointer to
> TREE_TYPE(t) which is "int *"?

As Jakub said this is not the full story if you factor in type-based
aliasing.  Also
you of course have to account for the offset in operand 1.


> Uday.

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