This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PATCH: PR target/59379: [4.9 Regression] gomp_init_num_threads is compiled into an infinite loop with --with-arch=corei7 --with-cpu=slm
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2014 06:30:17 -0800
- Subject: Re: PATCH: PR target/59379: [4.9 Regression] gomp_init_num_threads is compiled into an infinite loop with --with-arch=corei7 --with-cpu=slm
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20140118201557 dot GA4402 at gmail dot com> <CAFULd4ar_8gcvBnfvp52n5H5zQMKvxty5KNnHebpAbuKXE9_aA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOo+6w74yPz6fuCF6-dUAz8Lm+F_mGPPZuedMiSykr92sA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAFULd4ZMuiH-XhtshxVr-+PSbJ-dy8MqrpztL2j2apx2UqeoTg at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 6:24 AM, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 3:20 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> For LEA operation with SImode_address_operand, which zero-extends SImode
>>>> to DImode, ix86_split_lea_for_addr turns
>>>>
>>>> (set (reg:DI) ...)
>>>>
>>>> into
>>>>
>>>> (set (reg:SI) ...)
>>>>
>>>> We need to do
>>>>
>>>> (set (reg:DI) (zero_extend:DI (reg:SI)))
>>>>
>>>> at the end. If the LEA operation is
>>>>
>>>> (set (reg:DI) (zero_extend:DI (reg:SI)))
>>>
>>> ree pass should remove these. However, we can just emit zero-extend
>>> insn at the end of sequence, and ree (which is located after
>>> post-reload split) should handle it:
>>>
>>> --cut here--
>>> Index: config/i386/i386.md
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- config/i386/i386.md (revision 206753)
>>> +++ config/i386/i386.md (working copy)
>>> @@ -5428,12 +5428,17 @@
>>> operands[0] = SET_DEST (pat);
>>> operands[1] = SET_SRC (pat);
>>>
>>> - /* Emit all operations in SImode for zero-extended addresses. Recall
>>> - that x86_64 inheretly zero-extends SImode operations to DImode. */
>>> + /* Emit all operations in SImode for zero-extended addresses. */
>>> if (SImode_address_operand (operands[1], VOIDmode))
>>> mode = SImode;
>>>
>>> ix86_split_lea_for_addr (curr_insn, operands, mode);
>>> +
>>> + /* Zero-extend return register to DImode for zero-extended addresses. */
>>> + if (mode != <MODE>mode)
>>> + emit_insn (gen_zero_extendsidi2
>>> + (operands[0], gen_lowpart ((mode), operands[0])));
>>> +
>>> DONE;
>>> }
>>> [(set_attr "type" "lea")
>>> --cut here--
>>>
>>> The patch was tested with a testcase from Comment #9 of the PR using
>>> "-O --march=corei7 -mtune=slm", and resulting binary runs without
>>> problems.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, the resulting GCC works correctly. However, we generate
>> extra
>>
>> (set (reg:DI) (zero_extend:DI (reg:SI)))
>>
>> It is because we generate
>>
>> (set (reg:SI) (reg:SI)
>> (set (reg:DI) (zero_extend:DI (reg:SI)))
>>
>> REE pass doesn't know
>>
>> (set (reg:SI) (reg:SI)
>>
>> has an implicit ZERO_EXTEND. Here is a testcase:
>
> This is the correct sequence,and REE pass should be improved to handle
> this situation.
>
> Note, that the problem was that we assumed SImode operations
> (including move) have implicit DImode zero-extend, but in fact we
> haven't communicate this to the compiler in a proper way.
>
> So, I propose we go with my patch and file an enhancement PR for the REE pass.
>
That is fine with me. Please install it on all affected branches
and close the PR. I will open a new PR for REE pass.
Thanks.
--
H.J.