public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/34737] Inefficient gimplification of post-modified function arguments, TER doesn't do its work
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:19:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080111094239.16989.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-34737-14966@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>



------- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-01-11 09:42 -------
Confirmed.

void foo(char *p);

void test1(char * p)
{
    foo(p++);
    foo(p++);
    foo(p++);
    foo(p++);
}

void test2(char * p)
{
    foo(p); p++;
    foo(p); p++;
    foo(p); p++;
    foo(p); p++;
}

The problem is with the first variant we have two registers life over each
function call, while with the second variant only one.  This can be seen
from the optimized tree-dump already:

test1 (p)
{
<bb 2>: 
  p_3 = p_1(D) + 1;
  foo (p_1(D));
  p_5 = p_3 + 1;
  foo (p_3);
  p_7 = p_5 + 1;
  foo (p_5);
  foo (p_7) [tail call];
  return;

}

test2 (p)
{
<bb 2>:
  foo (p_1(D));
  p_2 = p_1(D) + 1;
  foo (p_2);
  p_3 = p_2 + 1;
  foo (p_3);
  p_4 = p_3 + 1;
  foo (p_4) [tail call];
  return;

}

and is initially caused by gimplification which produces

  p.0 = p;
  p = p + 1;
  foo (p.0);

from

  foo (p++ );

no further pass undos this transformation.

With GCC 4.0 TER produced

  foo (p);
  foo (p + 1B);
  foo (p + 2B);
...

where we can generate good code from.  From 4.1 on this is no longer done.


-- 

rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |                            |org
           Severity|normal                      |enhancement
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
          Component|c                           |tree-optimization
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
 GCC target triplet|multiple-none-none          |
           Keywords|                            |missed-optimization
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2008-01-11 09:42:38
               date|                            |
            Summary|missed optimization, foo(p);|Inefficient gimplification
                   |p++ is better then foo(p++) |of post-modified function
                   |                            |arguments, TER doesn't do
                   |                            |its work


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34737


  parent reply	other threads:[~2008-01-11  9:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-01-11  8:58 [Bug c/34737] New: missed optimization, foo(p); p++ is better then foo(p++) wvangulik at xs4all dot nl
2008-01-11  8:59 ` [Bug c/34737] " wvangulik at xs4all dot nl
2008-01-11 10:19 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org [this message]
2008-01-11 11:48 ` [Bug tree-optimization/34737] Scheduling of post-modified function arguments is not good pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-06-24  7:42 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-06-24  9:08 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2010-09-13 11:38 ` abnikant dot singh at atmel dot com

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20080111094239.16989.qmail@sourceware.org \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).