[Bug rtl-optimization/100342] [10/11 Regression] wrong code with -O2 -fno-dse -fno-forward-propagate -mno-sse2

cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Sat May 15 08:14:37 GMT 2021


--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek <jakub@gcc.gnu.org>:


commit r12-808-g425ad87dcfacbb326d8f448a0f2b4d6b53dcd98f
Author: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Date:   Sat May 15 10:12:11 2021 +0200

    regcprop: Fix another cprop_hardreg bug [PR100342]

    On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 04:10:33PM +0000, Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches
    > Ah, ok, thanks for the extra context.
    > So AIUI the problem when recording xmm2<-di isn't just:
    >  [A] partial_subreg_p (vd->e[sr].mode, GET_MODE (src))
    > but also that:
    >  [B] partial_subreg_p (vd->e[sr].mode,
    > For example, all registers in this sequence can be part of the same
    >     (set (reg:HI R1) (reg:HI R0))
    >     (set (reg:SI R2) (reg:SI R1)) // [A]
    >     (set (reg:DI R3) (reg:DI R2)) // [A]
    >     (set (reg:SI R4) (reg:SI R[0-3]))
    >     (set (reg:HI R5) (reg:HI R[0-4]))
    > But:
    >     (set (reg:SI R1) (reg:SI R0))
    >     (set (reg:HI R2) (reg:HI R1))
    >     (set (reg:SI R3) (reg:SI R2)) // [A] && [B]
    > is problematic because it dips below the precision of the oldest regno
    > and then increases again.
    > When this happens, I guess we have two choices:
    > (1) what the patch does: treat R3 as the start of a new chain.
    > (2) pretend that the copy occured in vd->e[sr].mode instead
    >     (i.e. copy vd->e[sr].mode to vd->e[dr].mode)
    > I guess (2) would need to be subject to REG_CAN_CHANGE_MODE_P.
    > Maybe the optimisation provided by (2) compared to (1) isn't common
    > enough to be worth the complication.
    > I think we should test [B] as well as [A] though.  The pass is set
    > up to do some quite elaborate mode changes and I think rejecting
    > [A] on its own would make some of the other code redundant.
    > It also feels like it should be a seperate âifâ or âelse ifâ,
    > with its own comment.

    Unfortunately, we now have a testcase that shows that testing also [B]
    is a problem (unfortunately now latent on the trunk, only reproduces
    on 10 and 11 branches).

    The comment in the patch tries to list just the interesting instructions,
    we have a 64-bit value, copy low 8 bit of those to another register,
    copy full 64 bits to another register and then clobber the original
    Before that (set (reg:DI r14) (const_int ...)) we have a chain
    DI r14, QI si, DI bp , that instruction drops the DI r14 from that chain,
    we have QI si, DI bp , si being the oldest_regno.
    Next DI si is copied into DI dx.  Only the low 8 bits of that are defined,
    the rest is unspecified, but we would add DI dx into that same chain at the
    end, so QI si, DI bp, DI dx [*].  Next si is overwritten, so the chain is
    DI bp, DI dx.  And then we see (set (reg:DI dx) (reg:DI bp)) and remove it
    as redundant, because we think bp and dx are already equivalent, when in
    reality that is true only for the lowpart 8 bits.
    I believe the [*] marked step above is where the bug is.

    The committed regcprop.c (copy_value) change (but only committed to
    trunk/11, not to 10) added
      else if (partial_subreg_p (vd->e[sr].mode, GET_MODE (src))
               && partial_subreg_p (vd->e[sr].mode,
    and while the first partial_subreg_p call returns true, the second one
    doesn't; before the (set (reg:DI r14) (const_int ...)) insn it would be
    true and we'd return, but as that reg got clobbered, si became the oldest
    regno in the chain and so vd->e[vd->e[sr].oldest_regno].mode is QImode
    and vd->e[sr].mode is QImode too, so the second partial_subreg_p is false.
    But as the testcase shows, what is the oldest_regno in the chain is
    something that changes over time, so relying on it for anything is
    problematic, something could have a different oldest_regno and later
    on get a different oldest_regno (perhaps with different mode) because
    the oldest_regno got overwritten and it can change both ways.

    The following patch effectively implements your (2) above.

    2021-05-15  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>

            PR rtl-optimization/100342
            * regcprop.c (copy_value): When copying a source reg in a wider
            mode than it has recorded for the value, adjust recorded
            mode too or punt if !REG_CAN_CHANGE_MODE_P.

            * gcc.target/i386/pr100342.c: New test.

More information about the Gcc-bugs mailing list