[PR72835] Incorrect arithmetic optimization involving bitfield arguments

Richard Biener richard.guenther@gmail.com
Wed Aug 10 10:28:00 GMT 2016


On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 08:51:32AM +1000, kugan wrote:
>> I see it now. The problem is we are just looking at (-1) being in the ops
>> list for passing changed to rewrite_expr_tree in the case of multiplication
>> by negate.  If we have combined (-1), as in the testcase, we will not have
>> the (-1) and will pass changed=false to rewrite_expr_tree.
>>
>> We should set changed based on what happens in try_special_add_to_ops.
>> Attached patch does this. Bootstrap and regression testing are ongoing. Is
>> this OK for trunk if there is no regression.
>
> I think the bug is elsewhere.  In particular in
> undistribute_ops_list/zero_one_operation/decrement_power.
> All those look problematic in this regard, they change RHS of statements
> to something that holds a different value, while keeping the LHS.
> So, generally you should instead just add a new stmt next to the old one,
> and adjust data structures (replace the old SSA_NAME in some ->op with
> the new one).  decrement_power might be a problem here, dunno if all the
> builtins are const in all cases that DSE would kill the old one,
> Richard, any preferences for that?  reset flow sensitive info + reset debug
> stmt uses, or something different?  Though, replacing the LHS with a new
> anonymous SSA_NAME might be needed too, in case it is before SSA_NAME of a
> user var that doesn't yet have any debug stmts.

I'd say replacing the LHS is the way to go, with calling the appropriate helper
on the old stmt to generate a debug stmt for it / its uses (would need
to look it
up here).

Richard.

>
>         Jakub



More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list