[COMMITTED] path solver: Solve PHI imports first for ranges.

Aldy Hernandez aldyh@redhat.com
Sat Nov 13 11:55:11 GMT 2021


On Sat, Nov 13, 2021 at 10:41 AM Aldy Hernandez <aldyh@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 13, 2021 at 1:51 AM Andrew MacLeod <amacleod@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 11/12/21 14:50, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > > On November 12, 2021 8:46:25 PM GMT+01:00, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> > >> PHIs must be resolved first while solving ranges in a block,
> > >> regardless of where they appear in the import bitmap.  We went through
> > >> a similar exercise for the relational code, but missed these.
> > > Must not all stmts be resolved in program order (for optimality at least)?
> >
> > Generally,Imports are live on entry values to a block, so their order is
> > not particularly important.. they are all simultaneous. PHIs are also
> > considered imports for data flow purposes, but they happen before the
> > first stmt, all simultaneously... they need to be distinguished because
> > phi arguments can refer to other phi defs which may be in this block
> > live around a back edge, and we need to be sure we get the right version.
> >
> > we should look closer to be sure this isn't an accidental fix that
> > leaves the root problem .   we need to be sure *all* the PHI arguments
> > are resolved from outside this block. whats the testcase?
>
> The testcase is the simpler testcase from the PR:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51776
>
> The gist is on a path coming in from BB13:
>
>     # n_42 = PHI <m_31(13), addr_14(D)(4)>
>     # m_31 = PHI <0(13), m_16(4)>
>
> We were solving m_31 first and putting it in the cache, and then the
> calculation for n_42 picked up this cached m_31 incorrectly.
>
> With my patch we do the PHIs first, in whatever gphi_iterator order
> uses, which I assume is the order in the IL above.
>
> However, if PHIs must be resolved simultaneously, then perhaps we need
> to tweak this.  Suppose we flip the definitions:
>
>     # m_31 = PHI <0(13), m_16(4)>
>     # n_42 = PHI <m_31(13), addr_14(D)(4)>
>
> I assume the definition of n_42 should pick up the incoming m_31(13),
> not one defined in the other PHI.  In which case, we could resolve all
> the PHIs first, but put them in the cache after we're done with all of
> them.

And lo and behold, a PR just came in exhibiting this exact behavior,
saving me from having to come up with a reduced testcase ;-).

The testcase in the PR has a path coming in from BB5:

    # p3_7 = PHI <1(2), 0(5)>
    # p2_17 = PHI <1(2), p3_7(5)>

We're picking up the p3_7 in the PHI when calculating p2_17.

Attached is the patch in testing.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0001-path-solver-Compute-all-PHI-ranges-simultaneously.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 4644 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/attachments/20211113/e78e12cb/attachment-0001.bin>


More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list