This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org 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: IVOPT improvement patch


It looks strange:

+      width = (GET_MODE_BITSIZE (address_mode) <  HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - 1)
+          ? GET_MODE_BITSIZE (address_mode) : HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - 1;
       addr = gen_rtx_fmt_ee (PLUS, address_mode, reg1, NULL_RTX);
-      for (i = start; i <= 1 << 20; i <<= 1)
+      for (i = 1; i < width; i++)
 	{
-	  XEXP (addr, 1) = gen_int_mode (i, address_mode);
+          HOST_WIDE_INT offset = (1ll << i);
+	  XEXP (addr, 1) = gen_int_mode (offset, address_mode);
 	  if (!memory_address_addr_space_p (mem_mode, addr, as))
 	    break;
 	}

HOST_WIDE_INT may be long or long long. "1ll" isn't always correct.
I think width can be >= 31. Depending on HOST_WIDE_INT,

HOST_WIDE_INT offset = -(1ll << i);

may have different values. The whole function looks odd to me.


H.J.
----
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com> wrote:
> Please take a look at the following patch -- it is less conservative
> than before and also does not lead to infinite loop (due to integer
> overflow).
>
> Testing is under going. Ok for trunk after that is done?
>
> Thanks,
>
> David
>
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 9:51 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Richard Guenther
>> <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 6:00 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 8:22 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The attached patch should fix the problem -- it reverts a small part
>>>>>> of the last patch that is needed for fixing sixtrack performance
>>>>>> regression caused by wrong iv-use costs because address offset range
>>>>>> is conservatively computed. I will revert the change first and
>>>>>> investigate better fix (Suggestions are welcome).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Since "gcc -m32" works on Linux/x86-64 and goes into an infinite loop,
>>>>> it sounds like a HOST_WIDE_INT issue.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This patch fixed the infinite loop.
>>>
>>> That doesn't make sense. ?Please use double_ints instead.
>>>
>>> Richard.
>>
>> I am not familiar wit this code. I will leave it to David.
>>
>>
>> H.J.
>> ---
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> H.J.
>>>> diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c
>>>> index 519f66e..44f2eb2 100644
>>>> --- a/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c
>>>> +++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c
>>>> @@ -3207,7 +3207,7 @@ multiplier_allowed_in_address_p (HOST_WIDE_INT
>>>> ratio, enum machine_mode mode,
>>>>
>>>> ?typedef struct
>>>> ?{
>>>> - ?HOST_WIDE_INT min_offset, max_offset;
>>>> + ?HOST_WIDEST_INT min_offset, max_offset;
>>>> ? unsigned costs[2][2][2][2];
>>>> ?} *address_cost_data;
>>>>
>>>> @@ -3240,9 +3240,9 @@ get_address_cost (bool symbol_present, bool var_present,
>>>> ? data = VEC_index (address_cost_data, address_cost_data_list, data_index);
>>>> ? if (!data)
>>>> ? ? {
>>>> - ? ? ?HOST_WIDE_INT i;
>>>> - ? ? ?HOST_WIDE_INT start = BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT / BITS_PER_UNIT;
>>>> - ? ? ?HOST_WIDE_INT rat, off;
>>>> + ? ? ?HOST_WIDEST_INT i;
>>>> + ? ? ?HOST_WIDEST_INT start = BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT / BITS_PER_UNIT;
>>>> + ? ? ?HOST_WIDEST_INT rat, off;
>>>> ? ? ? int old_cse_not_expected, width;
>>>> ? ? ? unsigned sym_p, var_p, off_p, rat_p, add_c;
>>>> ? ? ? rtx seq, addr, base;
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> H.J.
>>
>



-- 
H.J.


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