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: Continue strict-volatile-bitfields fixes


Hi!

On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 19:46:17 +0200, I wrote:
> Here is my current test case, reduced from gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20030922-1.c:
> 
>     extern void abort (void);
>     
>     enum tree_code
>     {
>       BIND_EXPR,
>     };
>     struct tree_common
>     {
>       enum tree_code code:8;
>     };
>     void
>     voidify_wrapper_expr (struct tree_common *common)
>     {
>       switch (common->code)
>         {
>         case BIND_EXPR:
>           if (common->code != BIND_EXPR)
>             abort ();
>         }
>     }
> 
> The diff for -fdump-tree-all between compiling with
> -fno-strict-volatile-bitfields and -fstrict-volatile-bitfields begins
> with the following, right in 20030922-1.c.003t.original:
> 
> diff -ru fnsvb/20030922-1.c.003t.original fsvb/20030922-1.c.003t.original
> --- fnsvb/20030922-1.c.003t.original    2012-04-19 16:51:18.322150866 +0200
> +++ fsvb/20030922-1.c.003t.original     2012-04-19 16:49:18.132088498 +0200
> @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
>    switch ((int) common->code)
>      {
>        case 0:;
> -      if (common->code != 0)
> +      if ((BIT_FIELD_REF <*common, 32, 0> & 255) != 0)
>          {
>            abort ();
>          }
> 
> That is, for -fno-strict-volatile-bitfields the second instance of
> Âcommon->code it is a component_ref, whereas for
> -fstrict-volatile-bitfields it is a bit_field_ref.  The former will be
> optimized as intended, the latter will not.  So, what should be emitted
> in the -fstrict-volatile-bitfields case?  A component_ref -- but this is
> what Bernd's commit r182545 (for PR51200) changed, I think?  Or should
> later optimization stages learn to better deal with a bit_field_ref, and
> where would this have to happen?

I figured out why this generic code is behaving differently for SH
targets.  I compared to ARM as well as x86, for which indeed the
optimization possibility is not lost even when compiling with
-fstrict-volatile-bitfields.

The component_ref inside the if statement (but not the one in the switch
statement) is fed into optimize_bit_field_compare where it is optimized
to ÂBIT_FIELD_REF <*common, 32, 0> & 255Â only for SH, because
get_best_mode for SH returns SImode (ARM, x86: QImode), because SH has
Â#define SLOW_BYTE_ACCESS 1Â, and thus the original QImode is widened to
SImode, hoping for better code generation Âsince it may eliminate
subsequent memory access if subsequent accesses occur to other fields in
the same word of the structure, but to different bytesÂ.  (Well, the
converse happens here...)  After that, in optimize_bit_field_compare, for
ARM and x86, Ânbitsize == lbitsizeÂ, and thus the optimization is
aborted, whereas for SH it will be performed, that is, the component_ref
is replaced with ÂBIT_FIELD_REF <*common, 32, 0> & 255Â.

If I manually force SH's SImode back to QImode (that is, abort
optimize_bit_field_compare), the later optimization passes work as they
do for ARM and x86.

Before Bernd's r182545, optimize_bit_field_compare returned early (that
is, aborted this optimization attempt), because Âlbitsize ==
GET_MODE_BITSIZE (lmode)Â (8 bits).  (With the current sources, lmode is
VOIDmode.)

Is emmitting ÂBIT_FIELD_REF <*common, 32, 0> & 255Â wrong in this case,
or should a later optimization pass be able to figure out that
ÂBIT_FIELD_REF <*common, 32, 0> & 255Â is in fact the same as
common->code, and then be able to conflate these?  Any suggestions
where/how to tackle this?


GrÃÃe,
 Thomas

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature


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