[Bug tree-optimization/80155] [7 regression] Performance regression with code hoisting enabled
rguenther at suse dot de
gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Thu Mar 23 14:04:00 GMT 2017
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80155
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Thu, 23 Mar 2017, thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80155
>
> --- Comment #12 from Thomas Preud'homme <thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
> > Ah, the patches do not fix the testcase because the testcase is _not_ the
> > PRE-creates-IV case. It's indeed simply hoisting/PRE at work transforming
> >
> > # a_14 = PHI <a_10(, a_5(D)>
> > if (!b)
> > a_8 = a_14 + 1;
> >
> > # a_2 = PHI <a_14(10), a_8(4)>
> > a_10 = a_2 + 1;
> > ... = *(a_2 + 1);
> >
> > to
> >
> > # a_14 = PHI <prephimp_12, a_5(D)>
> > _4 = a_14 + 1;
> > if (b)
> > _3 = _4 + 1;
> >
> > # a_2 = PHI <a_14, _4>
> > # prephitmp_12 = PHI <_4, _3>
> > ... = *(a_2 + 1);
> >
> > increasing register pressure mainly because nothing figures that a_2 + 1
> > in the dereference can be replaced by prephitmp_12 ...
> >
> > So this is a missed SLSR opportunity or, in this simple form, a missed
> > PRE/CSE opportunity. Fixing that with the following (otherwise untested)
> > restores good code generation for the testcase:
> >
> > Index: gcc/tree-ssa-pre.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- gcc/tree-ssa-pre.c (revision 246414)
> > +++ gcc/tree-ssa-pre.c (working copy)
> > @@ -4636,6 +4610,35 @@ eliminate_dom_walker::before_dom_childre
> > }
> > }
> >
> > + if (gimple_has_ops (stmt))
> > + for (unsigned i = 0; i < gimple_num_ops (stmt); ++i)
> > + {
> > + tree op = gimple_op (stmt, i);
> > + if (op)
> > + op = get_base_address (op);
> > + if (op
> > + && TREE_CODE (op) == MEM_REF
> > + && ! integer_zerop (TREE_OPERAND (op, 1)))
> > + {
> > + tree ops[2];
> > + vn_nary_op_t nary;
> > + ops[0] = TREE_OPERAND (op, 0);
> > + ops[1] = TREE_OPERAND (op, 1);
> > + tree res = vn_nary_op_lookup_pieces (2, POINTER_PLUS_EXPR,
> > + TREE_TYPE (ops[0]),
> > + ops, &nary);
> > + if (res && TREE_CODE (res) == SSA_NAME)
> > + res = eliminate_avail (res);
> > + if (res)
> > + {
> > + TREE_OPERAND (op, 0) = res;
> > + TREE_OPERAND (op, 1)
> > + = build_int_cst (TREE_TYPE (TREE_OPERAND (op, 1)), 0);
> > + gimple_set_modified (stmt, true);
Add
if (TREE_CODE (res) == SSA_NAME
&& !is_gimple_debug (stmt))
gimple_set_plf (SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT (res),
NECESSARY, true);
here.
> > + }
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > if (gimple_modified_p (stmt))
> > {
> > /* If a formerly non-invariant ADDR_EXPR is turned into an
> >
> > note that in general optimzing
> >
> > q = p + 1;
> > = ...*(p + 1);
> >
> > "back" to *q will be undone by forwprop/stmt folding later but in this
> > case the feeding stmt is a PHI node and not a pointer-plus. It still
> > means that the change might be a bit too disruptive at this point
> > (we could restricit it a bit by only handling the case where we don't
> > replace with a pointer-plus result).
>
> Thanks for your work on this! Sadly GCC ICEs with this patch:
>
> 0xd36f53 update_dep_bb
> gcc/tree-ssa-tail-merge.c:411
> 0xd38f54 stmt_update_dep_bb
> gcc/tree-ssa-tail-merge.c:429
> 0xd38f54 same_succ_hash
> gcc/tree-ssa-tail-merge.c:452
> 0xd38f54 find_same_succ_bb
> gcc/tree-ssa-tail-merge.c:717
> 0xd39927 find_same_succ
> gcc/tree-ssa-tail-merge.c:748
> 0xd39927 init_worklist
> gcc/tree-ssa-tail-merge.c:767
> 0xd39927 tail_merge_optimize(unsigned int)
> gcc/tree-ssa-tail-merge.c:1726
> 0xce2d6a execute
> gcc/tree-ssa-pre.c:5164
>
>
More information about the Gcc-bugs
mailing list