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: Need sanity check on DSE vs expander issue

On December 20, 2019 3:20:40 AM GMT+01:00, Jeff Law <> wrote:
>I need a sanity check here.
>Given this code:
>> typedef union { long double value; unsigned int word[4]; }
>> static unsigned int ored_words[4];
>> static void add_to_ored_words (long double x)
>> {
>>   memory_long_double m;
>>   size_t i;
>>   memset (&m, 0, sizeof (m));
>>   m.value = x;
>>   for (i = 0; i < 4; i++)
>>     {
>>       ored_words[i] |= m.word[i];
>>     }
>> }
>DSE is removing the memset as it thinks the assignment to m.value is
>going to set the entire union.
>But when we translate that into RTL we use XFmode:
>> ;; m.value ={v} x_6(D);
>> (insn 7 6 0 (set (mem/v/j/c:XF (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 77
>>                 (const_int -16 [0xfffffffffffffff0])) [2 m.value+0
>S16 A128])
>>         (reg/v:XF 86 [ x ])) "j.c":13:11 -1
>>      (nil))
>That (of course) only writes 80 bits of data because of XFmode, leaving
>48 bits uninitialized.  We then read those bits, or-ing the
>uninitialized data into ored_words and all hell breaks loose later.
>Am I losing my mind?  ISTM that dse and the expander have to agree on
>how much data is written by the store to m.value.

It looks like MEM_SIZE is wrong here, so you need to figure how we arrive at this (I guess TYPE_SIZE vs. MODE_SIZE mismatch is biting us here?)

That is, either the MEM should have BLKmode or the mode size should match
MEM_SIZE. Maybe DSE can avoid looking at MEM_SIZE for non-BLKmode MEMs? 



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