[Bug tree-optimization/48571] New: Missed data-dependence for (bogus?) reconstructed array-refs
rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Tue Apr 12 12:20:00 GMT 2011
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48571
Summary: Missed data-dependence for (bogus?) reconstructed
array-refs
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: rguenth@gcc.gnu.org
Target: i?86-*-*
We vectorize the following loop, ignoring dependences between c[i] and c[i-1].
unsigned int c[624];
void
bar (void)
{
unsigned int i;
for (i = 1; i < 624; ++i)
/* Obfuscated c[i] = c[i-1] * 2. */
*(unsigned int *)((void *)c + (__SIZE_TYPE__)i * 4)
= *(unsigned int *)((void *)c + ((__SIZE_TYPE__)i +
((__SIZE_TYPE__)-4)/4) * 4) * 2;
}
This is because we re-construct array-refs
<bb 3>:
# i_17 = PHI <i_12(4), 1(2)>
# ivtmp.8_21 = PHI <ivtmp.8_20(4), 623(2)>
D.2689_3 = (long unsigned int) i_17;
D.2692_7 = D.2689_3 + 1073741823;
D.2695_10 = MEM[(unsigned int *)&c][D.2692_7]{lb: 0 sz: 4};
D.2696_11 = D.2695_10 * 2;
MEM[(unsigned int *)&c][D.2689_3]{lb: 0 sz: 4} = D.2696_11;
and the array index D.2692_7 is out of bounds (but of course the address
computation will make the access wrap into the correct place).
The middle-end happily performs such obfuscation via
fold_plusminus_mult_expr from (i*4 + -4U).
The array-refs are re-built by forwprop.
I'm not sure who is wrong here - bogus constrained interpretation of
array-refs by data dependence analysis or bogus construction of
constrained array-refs from pointer arithmetic.
Executable testcase, x86_64, -O3 -msse2 -m32:
unsigned int c[624];
void __attribute__((noinline))
bar (void)
{
unsigned int i;
/* Obfuscated c[i] = c[i-1] * 2. */
for (i = 1; i < 624; ++i)
*(unsigned int *)((void *)c + (__SIZE_TYPE__)i * 4)
= 2 * *(unsigned int *)((void *)c + ((__SIZE_TYPE__)i +
((__SIZE_TYPE__)-4)/4) * 4);
}
extern void abort (void);
int
main()
{
unsigned int i, j;
for (i = 0; i < 624; ++i)
c[i] = 1;
bar();
j = 1;
for (i = 0; i < 624; ++i)
{
if (c[i] != j)
abort ();
j = j * 2;
}
return 0;
}
More information about the Gcc-bugs
mailing list