[Bug middle-end/20408] New: Unnessasary code generated for empty structs

[Bug middle-end/20408] New: Unnessasary code generated for empty structs

[chris at bubblescope dot net]

Given an empty struct (ie struct X { };), even at high optimisation levels g++
will insist on always allocating and zeroing some memory for empty structs.

This actually effects C++ code, including libstdc++-v3, as empty structs are
often used as a means of passing around functions.

EXAMPLE
------------------
struct X {};

void foo(X);

void call_foo()
{ foo(X()); }
------------------

generates (from -O3, t70.final_cleanup is:)
-------------------------------------------------
;; Function void call_foo() (_Z8call_foov)

void call_foo() ()
{
  struct X D.1597;

<bb 0>:
  D.1597 = 0;
  foo (D.1597) [tail call];
  return;

}
---------------------------------------------

-- 
           Summary: Unnessasary code generated for empty structs
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.1.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: minor
          Priority: P2
         Component: middle-end
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: chris at bubblescope dot net
                CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20408

[Bug c++/20408] Unnessasary code generated for empty structs

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-03-10 15:56 -------
Note this has no effect on the generated code.

But anyways:
  struct X D.1574;
  struct X D.1590;

  D.1574 = {};
  D.1590 = 0;

That is not right 0 is an INTEREGER_CST which cannot be an aggregate, that is just wrong.

If we had more type checking we would be an ICE.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|minor                       |normal
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
          Component|middle-end                  |c++
     Ever Confirmed|                            |1
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2005-03-10 15:56:21
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20408

[Bug c++/20408] Unnecessary code generated for empty structs

[chris at bubblescope dot net]

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|normal                      |minor


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20408

[Bug c++/20408] Unnecessary code generated for empty structs

[chris at bubblescope dot net]

------- Additional Comments From chris at bubblescope dot net  2005-03-10 16:00 -------
ignore my random changing of severity..

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|minor                       |normal


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20408

[Bug c++/20408] Unnecessary code generated for empty structs

[chris at bubblescope dot net]

------- Additional Comments From chris at bubblescope dot net  2005-03-10 16:05 -------
When you say "has no effect in final code", are you talking about the problem
you noticed, or the problem as a whole?

I find for each extra X I add to the type of foo I get a line much like:

movb %al, 28(%esp)

appearing in the assembler output, which I assume isn't necessary..

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20408

[Bug c++/20408] Unnecessary code generated for empty structs

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-03-10 16:10 -------
Werid on PPC, we get the most optimal code of
__Z8call_foov:
LFB2:
        b __Z3foo1X

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |missed-optimization


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20408

[Bug c++/20408] Unnecessary code generated for empty structs

[pcarlini at suse dot de]

------- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de  2005-03-10 16:19 -------
Andrew, is Daniel Berlin struct aliasing work likely to help, here?

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |pcarlini at suse dot de


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20408

[Bug c++/20408] Unnecessary code generated for empty structs

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-03-10 16:21 -------
(In reply to comment #5)
> Andrew, is Daniel Berlin struct aliasing work likely to help, here?

No, fixing the front-end so it no longer produces a = 0 will most likely fix this as that is just wrong.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |                            |org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20408

[Bug c++/20408] Unnecessary code generated for empty structs

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-03-10 17:06 -------
>From call.c:
  /* Don't pass empty class objects by value.  This is useful
     for tags in STL, which are used to control overload resolution.
     We don't need to handle other cases of copying empty classes.  */
  if (! decl || ! DECL_BUILT_IN (decl))
    for (tmp = parms; tmp; tmp = TREE_CHAIN (tmp))
      if (is_empty_class (TREE_TYPE (TREE_VALUE (tmp)))
	  && ! TREE_ADDRESSABLE (TREE_TYPE (TREE_VALUE (tmp))))
	{
	  tree t = build0 (EMPTY_CLASS_EXPR, TREE_TYPE (TREE_VALUE (tmp)));
	  TREE_VALUE (tmp) = build2 (COMPOUND_EXPR, TREE_TYPE (t),
				     TREE_VALUE (tmp), t);
	}


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20408

[Bug c++/20408] Unnecessary code generated for empty structs

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-03-10 17:07 -------
>From cp-gimplifier.c:
    case EMPTY_CLASS_EXPR:
      /* We create an INTEGER_CST with RECORD_TYPE and value zero.  */
      *expr_p = build_int_cst (TREE_TYPE (*expr_p), 0);

This is wrong.

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20408

[Bug c++/20408] Unnecessary code generated for empty structs

[pcarlini at suse dot de]

------- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de  2005-03-10 17:13 -------
Eh, I was looking at the very same code... Can't we deal with EMPTY_CLASS_EXPR
similarly to USING_STMT? ;) ;)

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20408

[Bug c++/20408] Unnecessary code generated for empty structs

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-03-10 17:15 -------
(In reply to comment #9)
> Eh, I was looking at the very same code... Can't we deal with EMPTY_CLASS_EXPR
> similarly to USING_STMT? ;) ;)

I think we should produce an empty CONSTRUCTOR (which I am testing right now).

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20408

[Bug middle-end/20408] Unnecessary code generated for empty structs

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-03-10 17:30 -------
(In reply to comment #10)
> I think we should produce an empty CONSTRUCTOR (which I am testing right now).
That did not fix it, we still get code generated for the "empty" struct:
;; D.1594 = {}
(nil)

;; foo (D.1594) [tail call]
(insn 10 8 11 (set (mem:QI (reg/f:SI 56 virtual-outgoing-args) [0 S1 A32])
        (reg:QI 58 [ D.1594 ])) -1 (nil)
    (nil))

(call_insn 11 10 0 (call (mem:QI (symbol_ref:SI ("_Z3foo1X") [flags 0x41] <function_decl 0x41e9ea6c 
foo>) [0 S1 A8])
        (const_int 4 [0x4])) -1 (nil)
    (nil)
    (nil))


But on PPC we get:
;; D.1588 = {}
(nil)

;; foo (D.1588) [tail call]
(insn 10 8 11 0 (set (reg:QI 3 r3)
        (reg:QI 118 [ D.1588 ])) -1 (nil)
    (nil))

(call_insn/j 11 10 12 0 (parallel [
            (call (mem:SI (symbol_ref:SI ("_Z3foo1X") [flags 0x41] <function_decl 0x41d9f984 foo>) [0 S4 
A8])
                (const_int 32 [0x20]))
            (use (const_int 0 [0x0]))
            (use (reg:SI 119))
            (return)
        ]) -1 (nil)
    (nil)
    (expr_list:REG_DEP_TRUE (use (reg:QI 3 r3))
        (nil)))


See the difference is that we pass on ppc via a register but on x86 we pass via the stack.  I don't know a 
way to fix this with a front-end change.


-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Component|c++                         |middle-end


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20408

[Bug middle-end/20408] Unnecessary code generated for empty structs

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-03-10 17:35 -------
The change to cp-gimplifier.c should still happen as it makes not create a INTEGER_CST for an 
aggregate.

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20408

[Bug middle-end/20408] Unnecessary code generated for empty structs

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-09-04 16:25 -------
For

struct Foo {};
void foo(const Foo&);
void bar(Foo);

void fooc(void)
{
        foo(Foo());
}
void barc(void)
{
        bar(Foo());
}

we get different initializers for the Foo& and the Foo case:

void fooc() ()
{
  struct Foo D.1594;

<bb 0>:
  D.1594 = {};
  foo (&D.1594);
  return;

}

void barc() ()
{
  struct Foo D.1613;

<bb 0>:
  D.1613 = 0;
  bar (D.1613) [tail call];
  return;

}

The former looks correct and does not produce initialization code
for the temporary.  The latter produces an unneccessary (uninitialized)
initialization of the pass-by-value stack slot on x86.

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20408

[Bug middle-end/20408] Unnecessary code generated for empty structs

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-09-04 16:37 -------
pinskia posted a patch for the =0 "bug"

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-03/msg01054.html

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20408

[Bug middle-end/20408] Unnecessary code generated for empty structs

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-09-04 17:12 -------
I will look at this.  Is this by any chance a regression?

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |dot org                     |org
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed|2005-03-10 15:56:21         |2005-09-04 17:12:03
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20408

[Bug middle-end/20408] Unnecessary code generated for empty structs

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-09-05 10:36 -------
Pinskias patch fixes one part of the problem.  For x86 there remains the
issue that we are passing X on the stack and generate

_Z8call_foov:
.LFB2:
        subl    $26, %esp
.LCFI4:
        pushw   %ax
.LCFI5:
.LCFI6:
        call    _Z3foo1X
        addl    $28, %esp
        ret

which is correct, but I wonder where we figure out to use %ax as source
for the tmp X.  Also no RTL optimizer sees that the pushw %ax can be
safely combined with the stack adjust before because the contents of %ax
are unknown and we don't care about what value we pass on the stack.

The call expander produces

(insn 9 8 10 1 (parallel [
            (set (reg/f:SI 7 sp)
                (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 7 sp)
                    (const_int -2 [0xfffffffe])))
            (clobber (reg:CC 17 flags))
        ]) -1 (nil)
    (nil))

(insn 10 9 11 1 (set (mem/s:QI (pre_modify:SI (reg/f:SI 7 sp)
                (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 7 sp)
                    (const_int -2 [0xfffffffe]))) [0 S1 A8])
        (reg:QI 58 [ D.1755 ])) -1 (nil)
    (nil))

(call_insn 11 10 12 1 (call (mem:QI (symbol_ref:SI ("_Z3foo1X") [flags 0x41]
<function_decl 0x40230e00 foo>) [0 S1 A8])
        (const_int 16 [0x10])) -1 (nil)
    (nil)
    (nil))

where it should not use reg 58 as the source to push, but rather
the stack slot we assigned to the D.1755 tmp.

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20408

[Bug middle-end/20408] Unnecessary code generated for empty structs

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-09-05 10:48 -------
Unfortunately we start with D.1755 allocated to a register.  This may be solved
at the tree level if we fix PR23372.  Or we need to be smarter at allocating
space for D.1755.

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20408

[Bug middle-end/20408] Unnecessary code generated for empty structs

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-09-05 12:38 -------
Life analysis should figure out, that for

(insn 10 9 11 1 (set (mem/s:QI (pre_modify:SI (reg/f:SI 7 sp)
                (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 7 sp)
                    (const_int -2 [0xfffffffe]))) [0 S1 A8])
        (reg:QI 58 [ D.1755 ])) -1 (nil)
    (nil))

where it notes that reg:QI 58 is dead after the instruction, never
became life before and so remove the set completely, only preserving
the side-effects 

                       (pre_modify:SI (reg/f:SI 7 sp)
                (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 7 sp)
                    (const_int -2 [0xfffffffe])))

someone familiar with flow.c should be able to hack this into
mark_used_reg() in a few minutes :)

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot  |unassigned at gcc dot gnu
                   |org                         |dot org
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |NEW


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20408

[Bug middle-end/20408] Unnecessary code generated for empty structs

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20408

--- Comment #25 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
<jason@gcc.gnu.org>:

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:031e97207463710797625382baff112b6c3ade51

commit r10-9362-g031e97207463710797625382baff112b6c3ade51
Author: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon Feb 8 17:04:03 2021 -0500

    c++: generic lambda, fn* conv, empty class [PR98326]

    Here, in the thunk returned from the captureless lambda conversion to
    pointer-to-function, we try to pass through invisible reference parameters
    by reference, without doing a copy.  The empty class copy optimization was
    messing that up.

    gcc/cp/ChangeLog:

            PR c++/98326
            PR c++/20408
            * cp-gimplify.c (simple_empty_class_p): Don't touch an invisiref
            parm.

    gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

            PR c++/98326
            * g++.dg/cpp1y/lambda-generic-empty1.C: New test.

[Bug middle-end/20408] Unnecessary code generated for empty structs

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20408

--- Comment #24 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill <jason@gcc.gnu.org>:

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bdbca69e0720fa9062fe71782235141f629ae006

commit r11-7142-gbdbca69e0720fa9062fe71782235141f629ae006
Author: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon Feb 8 17:04:03 2021 -0500

    c++: generic lambda, fn* conv, empty class [PR98326]

    Here, in the thunk returned from the captureless lambda conversion to
    pointer-to-function, we try to pass through invisible reference parameters
    by reference, without doing a copy.  The empty class copy optimization was
    messing that up.

    gcc/cp/ChangeLog:

            PR c++/98326
            PR c++/20408
            * cp-gimplify.c (simple_empty_class_p): Don't touch an invisiref
            parm.

    gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

            PR c++/98326
            * g++.dg/cpp1y/lambda-generic-empty1.C: New test.

[Bug middle-end/20408] Unnecessary code generated for empty structs

[jason at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20408

Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|---                         |10.0
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED

--- Comment #23 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed in GCC 10.

[Bug middle-end/20408] Unnecessary code generated for empty structs

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #20 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-11-27 09:40 -------
For the testcase in comment #13 we now generate two(!) temporaries:

void barc() ()
{
  struct Foo D.2027;
  struct Foo D.2028;

  D.2027 = {};
  D.2028 = {};
  bar (D.2028);
}

via gimplification of

;; Function void barc() (_Z4barcv)
;; enabled by -tree-original

<<cleanup_point <<< Unknown tree: expr_stmt
  bar (TARGET_EXPR <D.2027, {}>;, <<< Unknown tree: empty_class_expr >>>
;) >>>
>>;

though the generated assembler looks like we cannot do better:

_Z4barcv:
.LFB3:
        subq    $8, %rsp
.LCFI0:
        movb    $0, (%rsp)
        call    _Z3bar3Foo
        addq    $8, %rsp
        ret

_Z4foocv:
.LFB2:
        subq    $24, %rsp
.LCFI1:
        leaq    23(%rsp), %rdi
        call    _Z3fooRK3Foo
        addq    $24, %rsp
        ret

On the tree level the first simple DSE pass gets rid of the extra temporary
and its initialization.


-- 

rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|WAITING                     |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|2005-12-09 04:25:06         |2007-11-27 09:40:15
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20408

[Bug middle-end/20408] Unnecessary code generated for empty structs

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #19 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-11-26 14:17 -------
The recent improvements to the dataflow module and ra-conflicts may have fixed
this.  Richi, you were the last to look at this bug report.  Can you check if
there still is an issue to fix here?


-- 

steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |                            |org
             Status|NEW                         |WAITING


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20408