GCC does a better job folding operations involving plain Booleans than it does with bool bit-fields. The example below shows that in f() the return statement is folded to zero while in g() it's not. This is behind a class of -Wmaybe-uninitialized warnings. $ cat z.c && gcc -O2 -S -Wall -fdump-tree-optimized=/dev/stdout z.c struct A { _Bool i, j; }; _Bool f (struct A a) { if (a.i) a.j = 0; else a.j = a.i; return a.j; // folded to 0 } struct B { _Bool i: 1, j: 1; }; _Bool g (struct B b) { if (b.i) b.j = 0; else b.j = b.i; return b.j; // not folded } ;; Function f (f, funcdef_no=0, decl_uid=1946, cgraph_uid=1, symbol_order=0) _Bool f (struct A a) { <bb 2> [local count: 1073741824]: return 0; } ;; Function g (g, funcdef_no=1, decl_uid=1953, cgraph_uid=2, symbol_order=1) Removing basic block 5 _Bool g (struct B b) { _Bool b$j; unsigned char _1; unsigned char _2; _Bool _3; <bb 2> [local count: 1073741824]: _1 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<unsigned char>(b); _2 = _1 & 1; if (_2 != 0) goto <bb 4>; [50.00%] else goto <bb 3>; [50.00%] <bb 3> [local count: 536870913]: _3 = b.i; <bb 4> [local count: 1073741824]: # b$j_5 = PHI <0(2), _3(3)> return b$j_5; }
This comes down to lowering bitfields too soon. my bet it will happen even integer bitfields will have a problem.
Bisection points to r225825 as the revision where GCC started to fail to fold the code in g().
This only seems to affect C _Bool bit-fields and not C++ bool.
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > This comes down to lowering bitfields too soon. > my bet it will happen even integer bitfields will have a problem. Yes, unsigned bit-fields suffer the same problem but unlike for _Bool, GCC never emitted optimal code for those for this test case.
The main issue is optimize_bit_field_compare in fold-const.c which produces during GENERIC folding in .005t.original: if ((BIT_FIELD_REF <b, 8, 0> & 1) != 0) { b.j = 0; } else { b.j = b.i; } return b.j; that's premature in this place. For f() it also takes until DOM3 to do the folding unless you disable SRA which then makes EVRP recognize the second store as a.j = 0. With SRA we fail to derive ranges for a_10 in a_10 = MEM <unsigned char> [(struct A *)&a]; a$1_11 = MEM <unsigned char> [(struct A *)&a + 1B]; _1 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<_Bool>(a_10); if (_1 != 0) goto <bb 4>; [INV] else goto <bb 3>; [INV] <bb 3> : <bb 4> : # a$1_9 = PHI <0(2), a_10(3)> _7 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<_Bool>(a$1_9); thus we're missing looking through VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR in register_assert_for. Amending that would eventually also allow optimizing the prematurely folded vairant.
GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
GCC 9 branch is being closed
GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
Another simple example: #include <cstdint> struct SomeClass { bool cfg1 : 1; bool cfg2 : 1; bool cfg3 : 1; bool check() const noexcept { return cfg1 || cfg2 || cfg3; } }; bool check(const SomeClass& rt) { return rt.check(); } Emits: check(SomeClass const&): movzx edx, BYTE PTR [rdi] mov eax, edx and eax, 1 jne .L1 mov eax, edx shr al and eax, 1 je .L4 .L1: ret .L4: mov eax, edx shr al, 2 and eax, 1 ret While it should: check(SomeClass const&): test byte ptr [rdi], 7 setne al ret
GCC 10 branch is being closed.
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #2) > Bisection points to r225825 as the revision where GCC started to fail to > fold the code in g(). the fold-const didn't check `types_match (type, TREE_TYPE (@0))` but rather just did the equivalent to: (simplify (ne @0 integer_zerop@1) (if (TREE_CODE (TREE_TYPE (@0)) == BOOLEAN_TYPE) (non_lvalue (convert @0)))) While match now does not do the convert and checks the types_match check instead.
GCC 11 branch is being closed.
The main bug (and known regression) has been fixed on the trunk. However the additional testcase in c#9 has not. Given c#9 was unaffected by the changes on the trunk and we have no sense if c#9 is a regression or not, I've extracted that testcase into a new bug (bz118267) and I'm adjusting the regression markers on this bug.