RE: [PATCH] Use rtx_refs_may_alias_p instead of alias_sets_conflict_p in

["Bingfeng Mei" <bmei at broadcom dot com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Guenther [mailto:richard.guenther@gmail.com]
> Sent: 04 August 2010 16:15
> To: Bingfeng Mei
> Cc: Diego Novillo; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use rtx_refs_may_alias_p instead of
> alias_sets_conflict_p in
> 
> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Bingfeng Mei <bmei@broadcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Richard Guenther [mailto:richard.guenther@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: 04 August 2010 16:02
> >> To: Diego Novillo
> >> Cc: Bingfeng Mei; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use rtx_refs_may_alias_p instead of
> >> alias_sets_conflict_p in
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Richard Guenther
> >> <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Richard Guenther
> >> > <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Diego Novillo
> <dnovillo@google.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >>> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 14:52, Bingfeng Mei <bmei@broadcom.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> 2010-08-04 ?Bingfeng Mei ?<bmei@broadcom.com>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> ? ? ? ?* alias.c (walk_mems_2): Call rtx_refs_may_alias_p
> >> >>>> ? ? ? ?instead of alias_sets_conflict_p to get more accurate
> >> >>>> ? ? ? ?alias set information.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> OK.
> >> >>
> >> >> Wait. ?You need to use a proper dependence function instead,
> >> >> rtx_refs_may_alias_p isn't supposed to be used directly.
> >> >
> >> > Which would be true_dependence if using TBAA is valid here
> >> > (which I am not sure).
> >>
> >> After this patch insn_alias_sets_conflict_p is also seriously
> >> misnamed. ?As it is used only from within ddg.c it should
> >> be moved there and made private.
> >
> > So I need to make rtx_refs_may_alias_p global?
> 
> No.  You need to adjust add_inter_loop_mem_dep to, for the
> cases of {read,write} vs. {read,write} use the proper dependence
> queires
> 
> Like
> 
> /* Given two nodes, analyze their RTL insns and add inter-loop mem deps
>    to ddg G.  */
> static void
> add_inter_loop_mem_dep (ddg_ptr g, ddg_node_ptr from, ddg_node_ptr to)
> {
> -  if (!insn_alias_sets_conflict_p (from->insn, to->insn))
> -    /* Do not create edge if memory references have disjoint alias
> sets.  */
> -    return;
> 
>   if (mem_write_insn_p (from->insn))
>     {
>       if (mem_read_insn_p (to->insn))
> + {
> +   if (XXX_dependence (the-mems-in from->insn, the-mems-in to->insn))
>         create_ddg_dep_no_link (g, from, to,
>                                 DEBUG_INSN_P (to->insn)
>                                 ? ANTI_DEP : TRUE_DEP, MEM_DEP, 1);
> ... with XXX being output or anti or true.
> 
> etc.
But this is cross-iteration dependence, meaning backward. I assume
true_dependece function won't work here. 


> 
> Richard.
> 
> >>
> >> /* Given two nodes, analyze their RTL insns and add inter-loop mem
> deps
> >> ? ?to ddg G. ?*/
> >> static void
> >> add_inter_loop_mem_dep (ddg_ptr g, ddg_node_ptr from, ddg_node_ptr
> to)
> >> {
> >> ? if (!insn_alias_sets_conflict_p (from->insn, to->insn))
> >> ? ? /* Do not create edge if memory references have disjoint alias
> sets.
> >> */
> >> ? ? return;
> >>
> >> the comment ("inter-loop mem deps") suggests that using TBAA
> >> is not valid here.
> > Does TBAA mean type-based alias analysis? Why is it not valid here?
> >
> >>
> >> Richard.
> >>
> >> > Richard.
> >> >
> >> >> Richard.
> >> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Diego.
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >
> >
> >