[Bug middle-end/39326] Segmentation fault with -O1, out of memory with -O2

rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Tue Mar 12 14:05:00 GMT 2013


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39326

--- Comment #47 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-03-12 14:05:10 UTC ---
With caching affine-combination compute and ao_ref compute I have it down to

 tree loop invariant motion: 596.91 (79%) usr   0.73 (29%) sys 599.77 (78%)
wall   31135 kB ( 3%) ggc

without limiting anything.  I tried a more intelligent ref_indep_in_loop
(avoiding another quadraticness in loop depth ...) but it gets slower ...

*************** ref_indep_loop_p_1 (struct loop *loop, m
*** 2230,2242 ****
    bitmap refs_to_check;
    unsigned i;
    bitmap_iterator bi;
!   bool ret = true, stored = bitmap_bit_p (ref->stored, loop->num);
    mem_ref_p aref;

!   if (stored)
!     refs_to_check = memory_accesses.all_refs_in_loop[loop->num];
    else
!     refs_to_check = memory_accesses.all_refs_stored_in_loop[loop->num];

    EXECUTE_IF_SET_IN_BITMAP (refs_to_check, 0, i, bi)
      {
--- 2233,2245 ----
    bitmap refs_to_check;
    unsigned i;
    bitmap_iterator bi;
!   bool ret = true;
    mem_ref_p aref;

!   if (bitmap_bit_p (ref->stored, loop->num))
!     refs_to_check = memory_accesses.refs_in_loop[loop->num];
    else
!     refs_to_check = memory_accesses.refs_stored_in_loop[loop->num];

    EXECUTE_IF_SET_IN_BITMAP (refs_to_check, 0, i, bi)
      {
*************** ref_indep_loop_p_1 (struct loop *loop, m
*** 2259,2272 ****
  static bool
  ref_indep_loop_p (struct loop *loop, mem_ref_p ref)
  {
-   bool ret;
-
    if (bitmap_bit_p (ref->indep_loop, loop->num))
      return true;
    if (bitmap_bit_p (ref->dep_loop, loop->num))
      return false;

!   ret = ref_indep_loop_p_1 (loop, ref);

    if (dump_file && (dump_flags & TDF_DETAILS))
      fprintf (dump_file, "Querying dependencies of ref %u in loop %d: %s\n",
--- 2262,2286 ----
  static bool
  ref_indep_loop_p (struct loop *loop, mem_ref_p ref)
  {
    if (bitmap_bit_p (ref->indep_loop, loop->num))
      return true;
    if (bitmap_bit_p (ref->dep_loop, loop->num))
      return false;

!   bool ret = true;
!   struct loop *inner = loop->inner;
!   while (inner)
!     {
!       if (!ref_indep_loop_p (inner, ref))
!       {
!         ret = false;
!         break;
!       }
!       inner = inner->next;
!     }
!
!   if (ret)
!     ret = ref_indep_loop_p_1 (loop, ref);

    if (dump_file && (dump_flags & TDF_DETAILS))
      fprintf (dump_file, "Querying dependencies of ref %u in loop %d: %s\n",


with it we can also get rid of the all_refs_in_loop bitmap (only
all_refs_stored_in_loop is then used, by store-motion).

I don't see why the above should result in slower operation :/  It should
save us the time to re-query references in sub-loops (yes, they should
be cached already ... still walking the bitmap is not free).

To mimic parts of this idea the dep_loop/indep_loop checking/setting can
be improved to cover outer loops like with

@@ -2296,7 +2218,12 @@ record_indep_loop (struct loop *loop, me
   if (indep)
     bitmap_set_bit (ref->indep_loop, loop->num);
   else
-    bitmap_set_bit (ref->dep_loop, loop->num);
+    do
+      {
+       bitmap_set_bit (ref->dep_loop, loop->num);
+       loop = loop_outer (loop);
+      }
+    while (loop != current_loops->tree_root);
 }

and

@@ -2339,8 +2266,13 @@ ref_indep_loop_p (struct loop *loop, mem
 {
   bool ret;

-  if (bitmap_bit_p (ref->indep_loop, loop->num))
-    return true;
+  struct loop *oloop = loop;
+  do
+    {
+      if (bitmap_bit_p (ref->indep_loop, oloop->num))
+       return true;
+      oloop = loop_outer (oloop);
+    }
+  while (oloop != current_loops->tree_root);
   if (bitmap_bit_p (ref->dep_loop, loop->num))
     return false;

(no difference in compile-time)

anyway, another obvious improvement is to merge the two two-bitmap
sets (they are tri-state, dependent, independent and unknown).  That's
more cache-friendly (now, where's that tri-state "bitmap" implementation
that also saves the half bit we waste ... ;))  It helps a bit.



More information about the Gcc-bugs mailing list