This is the mail archive of the 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: SRA: don't drop clobbers

On Mon, 7 Jul 2014, Richard Biener wrote:

On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 1:38 AM, Marc Glisse <> wrote:

with this patch on top of
we finally warn for the testcase of PR 60517.

The new function is copied from init_subtree_with_zero right above. I guess
it might be possible to merge them into a single function, if desired. I
don't understand the debug stuff, but hopefully by keeping the functions
similar enough it shouldn't be too broken.

When we see a clobber during scalarization, instead of dropping it, we add a
clobber to the new variable, which the previous patch turns into an SSA_NAME
with a default def. Then either we reach uninit and warn, or the variable
appears in a PHI and CCP optimizes.

What's the point of a clobber of sth that was scalarized away?  So ...
can you please explain in more detail?

The main idea of these patches is that when we read from a place that was clobbered, instead of dropping the clobber and reading what was there before, we can use a variable with a default definition to mark that the content is undefined. This enables both warnings and optimizations.

The previous patch makes update_ssa handle replacing clobbers with default definitions when a variable doesn't have its address taken anymore. When SRA scalarizes, it creates a new variable and relies on update_ssa to finish the job. So I am inserting a clobber on the new variable so that update_ssa knows to use a default definition.

The new function needs a comment.

Indeed, I'll add one once the conversation on the first patch converges.


Marc Glisse

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