This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug rtl-optimization/53352] New: Incorrect CSE optimization on RTL expressions with a paradoxical subreg
- From: "meadori at codesourcery dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 22:49:02 +0000
- Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/53352] New: Incorrect CSE optimization on RTL expressions with a paradoxical subreg
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53352
Bug #: 53352
Summary: Incorrect CSE optimization on RTL expressions with a
paradoxical subreg
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: meadori@codesourcery.com
Host: GNU/Linux
Target: arm-none-linux-gnueabi
The attached reproduction case exhibits what I believe to be a bug
in the CSE pass. The problem can be reproduced from the mainline
at r187470. The compiler was built for arm-none-linux-gnueabi
and the reproduction case was compiled with -O3.
Out of the gate the expanded RTL of interest looks like:
(insn 12 11 13 3 (set (reg:SI 140)
(lshiftrt:SI (reg/v:SI 135 [ tmp1 ])
(const_int 16 [0x10])))
(nil))
(insn 13 12 14 3 (set (reg:QI 141)
(subreg:QI (reg:SI 140) 0))
(nil))
(insn 14 13 15 3 (set (reg:SI 142)
(subreg:SI (reg:QI 141) 0))
(nil))
(insn 15 14 16 3 (set (reg:SI 134 [ tmp1$2 ])
(and:SI (reg:SI 142)
(const_int 255 [0xff])))
(nil))
...
(insn 29 28 30 3 (set (reg:SI 0 r0)
(const_int 0 [0]))
(nil))
after "cse1" things look like:
(insn 12 11 13 2 (set (reg:SI 140)
(const_int 65280 [0xff00]))
(nil))
(insn 13 12 14 2 (set (reg:QI 141)
(subreg:QI (reg:SI 140) 0))
(expr_list:REG_EQUAL (const_int 0 [0])
(nil)))
;; This is *not* equal to zero because the upper
;; two bytes are undefined.
(insn 14 13 15 2 (set (reg:SI 142)
(subreg:SI (reg:QI 141) 0))
(expr_list:REG_EQUAL (const_int 0 [0])
(nil)))
(insn 15 14 16 2 (set (reg:SI 134 [ tmp1$2 ])
(reg:SI 142))
(expr_list:REG_EQUAL (const_int 0 [0])
(nil)))
...
(insn 29 28 30 2 (set (reg:SI 0 r0)
(reg:SI 142))
(expr_list:REG_EQUAL (const_int 0 [0])
(nil)))
I believe the REG_EQUAL note on the set involving a paradoxical subreg
is incorrect. It eventually causes 0xFF00 to be passed to the function
'foo'.
I doesn't look like 'equiv_constant' handles the paradoxical subreg case
correctly. I fixed it as follows and am testing the patch now:
Index: gcc/cse.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/cse.c (revision 187470)
+++ gcc/cse.c (working copy)
@@ -3786,8 +3786,11 @@
}
}
- /* Otherwise see if we already have a constant for the inner REG. */
+ /* Otherwise see if we already have a constant for the inner REG.
+ Don't bother with paradoxical subregs because we have no way
+ of knowing what the upper bytes are. */
if (REG_P (SUBREG_REG (x))
+ && (GET_MODE_SIZE (mode) <= GET_MODE_SIZE (imode))
&& (new_rtx = equiv_constant (SUBREG_REG (x))) != 0)
return simplify_subreg (mode, new_rtx, imode, SUBREG_BYTE (x));