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]

Re: Compilation of object creation in C++


On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Uday P. Khedker <uday@cse.iitb.ac.in> wrote:
>
>
> On 08/19/2015 04:44 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:16 PM, Uday P. Khedker <uday@cse.iitb.ac.in>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Why is this different? Why is __comp_ctor not invoked in each case?
>>
>> This looks like the function has been inlined as it is short.
>>
>>
>
> Thanks, this is a useful lead. Setting -fno-inline seems to do the trick and
> now the behaviour is same. C intermediate language
>
>
> On 08/19/2015 06:00 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Uday P. Khedker <uday@cse.iitb.ac.in>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Andrew Pinski wrote on Wednesday 19 August 2015 04:44 PM:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Most of this is already in GCC 5 and above.  Including the IPA pass.
>>>> Have you looked into that pass yet?
>>>
>>>  From what I have read, it involves flow insensitive analysis whereas we
>>> are
>>> looking at flow sensitive analysis.
>>
>> It also performs flow-sensitive analysis, exactly like you suggest by
>> looking
>> for constructor calls or patterns that involve setting the vtable pointer
>> exposed through inlining.
>>
>>
> When I said flow sensitive, I have interprocedural version in mind. When I
> looked up ipa-devirt.c,
> there seems to be a traversal  using FOR_EACH_DEFINED_FUNCTION (n), but
> nothing in it
> indicates, an interprocedural transfer of information. I also looked up Jan
> Hubicka's blogs
> (http://hubicka.blogspot.ca/2014/01/devirtualization-in-c-part-2-low-level.html)
> and if I have understood it correctly, the analysis done by constant
> propagation and global
> value numbering is at the intraprocedural level (haven't looked up these
> passes though).
>
> Here's a rather trivial example where gcc-5.1 misses devirtualization
>
> class A
> {
>        public:
>                virtual void f() {cout << "\tA:f" << endl;}
> };
>
> class B : public A
> {     public:
>               void f() {cout << "\tB:f" << endl;}
> };
>
> class C : public B
> {
>      public:
>               void f() {cout<< "\tC:f" << endl;}
> };
>
> void fun1 (A *a, int i)
> {
>     cout << "\nhi in fun1" << i << endl ;
>     a->f();
> }
>
> int main()
> {
>         A  *a1;
>     a1 = new A;
>     fun1 (a1, 10);
>
>     A *a2;
>     a2 = new A;
>     fun1 (a2, 5);
> }
>
> Assuming that there is no other translation unit and this is the complete
> program, the call a->f() is always for class
> A but the dump in .058i.devirt says
>
> Procesing function void fun1(A*, int)/232
>   Targets of polymorphic call of type 28:struct A token 0
>     Outer type (dynamic):struct A (or a derived type) offset 0
>     This is partial list; extra targets may be defined in other units.
> (derived types included)
>        virtual void A::f()/229 virtual void B::f()/230 virtual void
> C::f()/231
>
> suggesting that A, B, and C are possible classes.
>
> Even a simple field and context insensitive interprocedural analysis would
> figure out that only one call is
> possible (assuming this is the complete program).

Did you tell GCC this is a complete program?

> The situation we are looking at involves interprocedural propagation with
> complex calls such as a->f->g->h(). We
> plan to use a demand driven flow, context, and field sensitive sensitive
> points-to analysis which involves just about enough
> computation required to resolves such calls.

I see.

Richard.

> Uday.
>
>
>
>


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