Re: [PATCH] Fix some more alignment bugs in the midde-end (PR 91603, 91612, 91613)

[Richard Biener <rguenther at suse dot de>]

On Tue, 3 Sep 2019, Richard Biener wrote:

> On Tue, 3 Sep 2019, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> 
> > On 9/3/19 1:12 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > On Tue, 3 Sep 2019, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> > > 
> > >> On 9/3/19 9:05 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > >>> On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 07:02:53AM +0000, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> > >>>> 2019-09-03  Bernd Edlinger  <bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 	PR middle-end/91603
> > >>>> 	PR middle-end/91612
> > >>>> 	PR middle-end/91613
> > >>>> 	* expr.c (expand_expr_real_1): decl_p_1): Refactor into...
> > >>>> 	(non_mem_decl_p): ...this.
> > >>>> 	(mem_ref_refers_to_non_mem_p): Handle DECL_P as well ase MEM_REF.
> > >>>> 	(expand_assignment): Call mem_ref_referes_to_non_mem_p
> > >>>> 	unconditionally as before.
> > >>>
> > >>> Not a review, just questioning the ChangeLog entry.
> > >>> What is the "decl_p_1): " in there?  Also, the ChangeLog mentions many
> > >>> functions, but the patch in reality just modifies expand_expr_real_1
> > >>> and nothing else.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Ah, sorry, this is of course wrong, (I forgot to complete the sentence,
> > >> and later forgot to check it again)....
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> This is what I actually wanted to say:
> > >>
> > >> 2019-09-03  Bernd Edlinger  <bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de>
> > >>
> > >>         PR middle-end/91603
> > >>         PR middle-end/91612
> > >>         PR middle-end/91613
> > >>         * expr.c (expand_expr_real_1): Handle unaligned decl_rtl
> > >>         and SSA_NAME referring to CONSTANT_P correctly.
> > >>
> > >> testsuite:
> > >> 2019-09-03  Bernd Edlinger  <bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de>
> > >>
> > >>         PR middle-end/91603
> > >>         * testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr91603.c: New test.
> > > 
> > > @@ -10062,7 +10062,43 @@ expand_expr_real_1 (tree exp, rtx target, 
> > > machine_
> > >         {
> > >           if (exp && MEM_P (temp) && REG_P (XEXP (temp, 0)))
> > >             mark_reg_pointer (XEXP (temp, 0), DECL_ALIGN (exp));
> > > +       }
> > > +      else if (MEM_P (decl_rtl))
> > > +       temp = decl_rtl;
> > >  
> > > +      if (temp != 0)
> > > +       {
> > > +         if (MEM_P (temp)
> > > +             && modifier != EXPAND_WRITE
> > > +             && modifier != EXPAND_MEMORY
> > > +             && modifier != EXPAND_INITIALIZER
> > > +             && modifier != EXPAND_CONST_ADDRESS
> > > +             && modifier != EXPAND_SUM
> > > +             && !inner_reference_p
> > > +             && mode != BLKmode
> > > +             && MEM_ALIGN (temp) < GET_MODE_ALIGNMENT (mode))
> > > 
> > > So other places ([TARGET_]MEM_REF cases) use "just"
> > > 
> > 
> > Yes, interesting all of them do slightly different things.
> > I started with cloning the MEM_REF case, but it ran immediately
> > into issues with this assert here:
> > 
> >           result = expand_expr (exp, target, tmode,
> >                                 modifier == EXPAND_INITIALIZER
> >                                 ? EXPAND_INITIALIZER : EXPAND_CONST_ADDRESS);
> > 
> >           /* If the DECL isn't in memory, then the DECL wasn't properly
> >              marked TREE_ADDRESSABLE, which will be either a front-end
> >              or a tree optimizer bug.  */
> > 
> >           gcc_assert (MEM_P (result));
> >           result = XEXP (result, 0);
> > 
> > which implies that I need to add EXPAND_INITIALIZER and EXPAND_CONST_ADDRESS,
> > but since the code immediately above also has an exception of EXPAND_SUM:
> > 
> >       else if (MEM_P (decl_rtl) && modifier != EXPAND_INITIALIZER)
> >         {
> >           if (alt_rtl)
> >             *alt_rtl = decl_rtl;
> >           decl_rtl = use_anchored_address (decl_rtl);
> >           if (modifier != EXPAND_CONST_ADDRESS
> >               && modifier != EXPAND_SUM
> > 
> > I thought it I need to add also an exception for EXPAND_SUM.
> > 
> > Probably there is a reason why TARGET_MEM_REF does not need the
> > extract_bit_field stuff, when I read the comment here:
> > 
> >             /* If the target does not have special handling for unaligned
> >                loads of mode then it can use regular moves for them.  */
> >             && ((icode = optab_handler (movmisalign_optab, mode))
> >                 != CODE_FOR_nothing))
> > 
> > it is just, I don't really believe it.
> 
> It should really be so.  IVOPTs created them and asked the backend
> if it supports it.  But yeah - who knows, I'd have to double check
> whether IVOPTs is careful here or not - at least I doubt targets
> w/o movmisalign_optab will never create unaligned TARGET_MEM_REFs...
> 
> > >         if (modifier != EXPAND_WRITE
> > >             && modifier != EXPAND_MEMORY
> > >             && !inner_reference_p
> > >             && mode != BLKmode
> > >             && align < GET_MODE_ALIGNMENT (mode))
> > > 
> > > I also wonder if you can split out all this common code to
> > > a function (the actual unaligned expansion, that is) and call
> > > it from those places (where the TARGET_MEM_REF case misses the
> > > slow_unaligned_access case - presumably wanting to "assert"
> > > that this doesn't happen.
> > > 
> > >             /* If the target does not have special handling for unaligned
> > >                loads of mode then it can use regular moves for them.  */
> > > 
> > 
> > Actually there is still a small difference to the MEM_REF expansion,
> > see the alt_rtl and the EXPAND_STACK_PARAM:
> > 
> >               temp = extract_bit_field (temp, GET_MODE_BITSIZE (mode),
> >                                         0, TYPE_UNSIGNED (TREE_TYPE (exp)),
> >                                         (modifier == EXPAND_STACK_PARM
> >                                          ? NULL_RTX : target),
> >                                         mode, mode, false, alt_rtl);
> > 
> > 
> > TARGET_MEM_REF does not do extract_bit_field at all,
> > while I think ignoring target and alt_rtl in the DECL_P case is safe,
> > target, because it is at most a missed optimization, and
> > alt_rtl because it should already be handled above?
> > But if I pass target I cannot simply ignore alt_rtl any more?
> 
> Ick.
> 
> > Well, I could pass target and alt_rtl differently each time.
> > 
> > should I still try to factor that into a single function, it will have
> > around 7 parameters?
> 
> I'd have to see the result to say...  but I did hope it was
> going to be a bit simpler.

I'd say go for the original patch and try the refactoring on top.

Thus, OK.

Thanks,
Richard.