This is the mail archive of the gcc@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]

Question about changing {machine,type} modes during LTO


Hello,

I have a problem with a transformation I'm working on and I would appreciate
some help. The transformation I am working on removes fields in structs early
during link-time. For the purposes of development and this example, my
transformation deletes the field identified as "delete_me" from the struct
identified as "astruct_s". These identifiers are hard coded in the
transformation at the moment.

For example:

```c
int
main()
{
   struct astruct_s { _Bool a; _Bool delete_me; _Bool c;};
   // more
}
```

should be equivalent to

```c
int
main()
{
   struct astruct_s { _Bool a; _Bool c;};
   // more
}
```

as long as no instruction accesses field "delete me".

I have succeeded in eliminating field "delete_me" from struct "astruct_s" and
at the same time successfully calculating field offsets and array offsets for
a subset of the C syntax. I am working on expanding the allowed syntax and at
the same time creating tests to verify my assumptions/work is still producing
correct results.

I was starting work on supporting arrays of multiple dimensions, when I found
an interesting edge case in my transformation. I was able to transform structs
of size 2, 3, (but not 4), 5, 6, 7, (but not 8), 9, 10... This was the stack
trace when the error was triggered:

```
a.c: In function ‘main’:
a.c:11:19: internal compiler error: in convert_move, at expr.c:219
   11 |  struct astruct_s b = a[argc][argc];
      |                   ^
0xb8bac3 convert_move(rtx_def*, rtx_def*, int)
        /home/eochoa/code/gcc/gcc/expr.c:219
0xb9f5cf store_expr(tree_node*, rtx_def*, int, bool, bool)
        /home/eochoa/code/gcc/gcc/expr.c:5825
0xb9d913 expand_assignment(tree_node*, tree_node*, bool)
        /home/eochoa/code/gcc/gcc/expr.c:5509
0xa08bfb expand_gimple_stmt_1
        /home/eochoa/code/gcc/gcc/cfgexpand.c:3746
0xa09047 expand_gimple_stmt
        /home/eochoa/code/gcc/gcc/cfgexpand.c:3844
0xa1170f expand_gimple_basic_block
        /home/eochoa/code/gcc/gcc/cfgexpand.c:5884
0xa134b7 execute
        /home/eochoa/code/gcc/gcc/cfgexpand.c:6539
Please submit a full bug report,
```

Looking at expr.c:219 I found the following assertions

```c
/* Copy data from FROM to TO, where the machine modes are not the same.
   Both modes may be integer, or both may be floating, or both may be
   fixed-point.
   UNSIGNEDP should be nonzero if FROM is an unsigned type.
   This causes zero-extension instead of sign-extension.  */

void
convert_move (rtx to, rtx from, int unsignedp)
{
  machine_mode to_mode = GET_MODE (to);
  machine_mode from_mode = GET_MODE (from);

  gcc_assert (to_mode != BLKmode);
  gcc_assert (from_mode != BLKmode); <-- crashes here
```

I started reading the gcc internals around machine modes:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Machine-Modes.html
and tried the experiment where I first compiled a struct of size 2 (and delete
field "delete_me"), then of size 3 and so on, and so on. I noticed that the
TYPE_MODE for matches the machine mode. And that it varies with the size of the
struct. (Which agrees with the definition of machine mode.)

I originally thought that I needed to set TYPE_MODE myself, but if layout_type
is called after deleting the field (which it is), then TYPE_MODE is correctly
set somewhere within layout_type:
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/68697710fdd35077e8617f493044b0ea717fc01a/gcc/stor-layout.c#L2203
I verified that layout_type is setting the correct values for TYPE_MODE when
transforming struct "astruct_s" by comparing the TYPE_MODE of different sizes
without the transformation applied. When transforming structs, layout_type
always returned a TYPE_MODE which matched the TYPE_MODE for unmodified structs
with the same size as the transformed struct (post transformation).

In other words:

For variable "struct not_transformed b" without transformation I obtain
the following relationship. Without transformation:

| size | typemode |
|------|----------|
| 1    | 13       |
| 2    | 14       |
| 3    | 1        |
| 4    | 15       |
| 5    | 1        |
| 6    | 1        |
| 7    | 1        |
| 8    | 16       |
| 9    | 1        |

With transformation (i.e. astruct_s b with a field named "delete_me")

| size before | size after | typemode |
|-------------|------------|----------|
| 2           | 1          | 13       |
| 3           | 2          | 14       |
| 4           | 3          | 1        |
| 5           | 4          | 15       |
| 6           | 5          | 1        |
| 7           | 6          | 1        |
| 8           | 7          | 1        |
| 9           | 8          | 16       |

I have a similar result for variable 
"struct astructs b[]". Without modifications:

| size | type_mode |
|------|-----------|
| 1    | 14       |
| 2    | 15       |
| 3    | 1        |
| 4    | 16       |
| 5    | 1        |
| 6    | 1        |

With deletion of a field:

| old size | size | type_mode|
|----------|------|----------|
| 2        | 1    | 14       |
| 3        | 2    | 15       |
| 4        | 3    | 1        | 
| 5        | 4    | 16       |
|6         | 5    | 1        |
| 8        | 7    | 1        |
| 9        | 8    | 17       |
| 10       | 9    | 1        |



So, going back to the error and the information that I had collected, I found
out that for structs of size 3 (and arrays holding structs of size 3) the
assigned TYPE_MODE for my machine should be BLKmode. E.g.

```c
int
main()
{
  struct untransformed { _Bool a; _Bool c; _Bool d;};
  struct untransformed b; // TYPE_MODE == BLKmode
  struct untransformed a[2]; // TYPE_MODE == BLKmode
  b = a[0];
}
```

So, when transforming structs of size 4, initially:

```c
int
main()
{
  struct astruct_s { _Bool a; _Bool c; _Bool delete_me; _Bool d;};
  struct astruct_s b; // TYPE_MODE != BLKmode
  struct astruct_s a[2]; // TYPE_MODE != BLKmode
  b = a[0];
}
```

However, after the struct is transformed, the TYPE_MODE becomes BLKmode.
This means, that the assertion that gets triggered is correct. `from_mode` is
indeed BLKmode and therefore the assertion gets triggered. "from_mode" should
be BLKmode, that's something I want and expect. And the assertion that is not triggered
`to_mode` is incorrect and should be triggered. This means to me that somehow we are
triggering a different execution path and hitting an assertion that we should
not have encountered in the first place.

This leads me to believe that I have not changed a TYPE_MODE somewhere in the
gimple code. Maybe specifically the variable "b" (since this is where the "to"
of the expression `b = a[0]` should be. However, printing the gimple code after
the transformation, shows that b is the new variable type with the correct
TYPE_MODE:

Before transformation
```
Executing structreorg
main (int argc, char * * argv)
{
  struct astruct_s a[2];
  struct astruct_s b;
  int D.10221;

  <bb 2> :
  b = a[0];
  b ={v} {CLOBBER};
  a ={v} {CLOBBER};
  _5 = 0;

  <bb 3> :
<L0>:
  return _5;

}
```

Some output of my pass:
```
modifying,astruct_s
offset,astruct_reorged,a,0
offset,astruct_reorged,c,1
offset,astruct_reorged,d,2
old type_mode 15
new type_mode 1 // This is BLKmode
new type,astruct_reorged

modifying,astruct_s[]
old type_mode 16
new type_mode 1 // This is BLKmode
new type,astruct_reorged[]
```

We can also look at the offending expression more indepth.
The type_mode's are unchanged here, but they are changed at the end.

```
b = a[0];
<rewrite_expr "b">
< type = astruct_s type_mode = 15>
    <rewrite_var_decl "b">
    < type = astruct_s type_mode = 15>
    </ type = astruct_s type_mode = 15>
    </rewrite_var_decl "b">
</ type = astruct_s type_mode = 15>
</rewrite_expr "b">

<rewrite_expr "a[0]">
< type = astruct_s type_mode = 15>
    <rewrite_array_ref "a[0]">
    < type = astruct_s type_mode = 15>

            <rewrite_expr "a">
            < type = astruct_s[] type_mode = 16>
                <rewrite_var_decl "a">
                < type = astruct_s[] type_mode = 16>
                </ type = astruct_s[] type_mode = 16>
            </ type = astruct_s[] type_mode = 16>
            </rewrite_expr "a">

            <rewrite_expr "0">
            < type = integer_cst type_mode = 15>
            </ type = integer_cst type_mode = 15>
            </rewrite_expr "0">

    </ type = astruct_reorged type_mode = 1>
    </rewrite_array_ref "a[0]">

</ type = astruct_reorged type_mode = 1>
</rewrite_expr "a[0]">

// ...SNIP...

<rewrite_expr "{CLOBBER}">
< type = astruct_s type_mode = 15>
    <rewrite_constructor "{CLOBBER}">
    < type = astruct_s type_mode = 15>
    </ type = astruct_reorged type_mode = 1>
    </rewrite_constructor "{CLOBBER}">
</ type = astruct_reorged type_mode = 1>
</rewrite_expr "{CLOBBER}">

// ...SNIP...

// Here is where the type mode are definitely modified for
// local variables
rewriting,local_decl  struct astruct_s a[2];,  struct astruct_reorged a[2]; 
rewriting,local_decl  struct astruct_s b;,  struct astruct_reorged b;

```

After the pass finishes this is the gimple I see.

```

main (int argc, char * * argv)
{
  struct astruct_reorged a[2];
  struct astruct_reorged b;
  int D.10221;

  <bb 2> :
  b = a[0];
  b ={v} {CLOBBER};
  a ={v} {CLOBBER};
  _5 = 0;

  <bb 3> :
<L0>:
  return _5;

}
```

So just to summarize, things changed include:
* Variable's Type b
* Variable's Type a
* Expression's Type a[0]
* {CLOBBER} expression's type

I have also tried using GDB to get a better grasp on how to fix the problem.
I use the following command to explore gcc's run time state in gdb.
$HOME/code/gcc-inst/bin/gcc -flto -fipa-typelist -fdump-ipa-typelist a.c -wrapper gdb,--args
I am able to see that the IPA passes are successfully executed, however, I am
never able to trigger a breakpoint during RTL generation. This is how I use gdb:

* I go to the third gdb instance to look at the linker in gdb
* set catchpoints for fork and vfork
* and look at the inferior process #5 which is where LTO is applied.
* I've tried to set a breakpoint for symbols "execute" and I mostly just see
all IPA passes, but I do not see pass_expand::execute.
* I've also looked other inferior processes but I cannot set a
breakpoint before the assertion is hit. GCC just exists normally.

Can anyone help me understand what could possibly be happening?
Some possibilities:
* Another LTO uses summary information and changes the type back to
non-BLKmode? (However, I also tried passing -flto-partition=none to
avoid summaries.)
* I am missing setting something in gimple which I do not know what that
could be? (Printing gimple doesn't show all information, but I did try
to set everything correctly).
* I am failing to communicate this change to other link time opts?
(I am changing the definition of this function as opposed to creating
a clone and then dropping the previous definition).
* Some other thing?

Any help would be appreciated!
Thanks

-Erick


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