This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Use rtx_refs_may_alias_p instead of alias_sets_conflict_p in
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Bingfeng Mei <bmei@broadcom.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> If we are going to use true_dependence function etc in ddg.c,
> we should be able to disable loop variant stuff (currently
> I can only think of offset-based memory disambiguation and TBAA).
> I added a flag loop_invariant to relevant functions in attached
> patch. The patch is tested and bootstrapped. Is this OK?
>
> Next, I need to adapt ddg.c to use these XXX_dependence functions,
> move and rename insn_alias_sets_conflict_p & friends to ddg.c.
> The original add_inter_loop_mem_dep is over-simplified.
> For example, it doesn't consider parallel patterns with more than
> one memory expressions.
+ if (!loop_invariant &&
&&s go to the next line.
if (DIFFERENT_ALIAS_SETS_P (x, mem))
return 0;
- if (nonoverlapping_memrefs_p (mem, x))
+ if (nonoverlapping_memrefs_p (mem, x, loop_invariant))
return 0;
The DIFFERENT_ALIAS_SETS_P would also need guarding.
I think that instead of changing all present functions it would be
better to create a new entry to the alias oracle for inter-iteration
queries, as for example you can't distinguish true and anti dependence
(which is also why TBAA isn't valid here). In fact the implementation
would be the same for all of RW, WR and WW dependence types.
The query would exactly match what Zdenek thinks of a
may-alias query, so I'd suggest to simply name it may_alias_p.
Richard.
> Thanks
> Bingfeng
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michael Matz [mailto:matz@suse.de]
>> Sent: 04 August 2010 17:15
>> To: Bingfeng Mei
>> Cc: Richard Guenther; Diego Novillo; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
>> Subject: RE: [PATCH] Use rtx_refs_may_alias_p instead of
>> alias_sets_conflict_p in
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, 4 Aug 2010, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
>>
>> > Does rtx_refs_may_alias_p include offset based disambiguation
>> (with/without
>> > tbaa flag).
>>
>> Actually it doesn't (we switch off recognizing SSA names as being equal
>> when called from RTL land). ?I forgot that this was recently changed.
>>
>> Unfortunately I was wrong with my assertion that TBAA can be used cross
>> iteration. ?The catch is the new memory model, with it's asymmetric
>> dependencies: you may move a load before a non-conflicting (type
>> wise) store, but you may not move a store before a non-conflicting load.
>>
>> In cross-iteration situations you are posed with both cases, hence you
>> can't really use type-based disambiguation (perhaps in some few special
>> cases one might, but not generally).
>>
>> Basically for cross iteration analysis you can only use points-to
>> information (or generally everything that is loop invariant for the
>> loop
>> in question, but that isn't implemented).
>>
>> > If yes, this patch is not correct, I need to work out a better one.
>>
>> It would be better to use the four different predicates we have in RTL
>> land as Richard suggested, they do the right thing for each dependency
>> type (switching off TBAA when appropriate).
>>
>>
>> Ciao,
>> Michael.
>
>