[Bug c/40087] New: Bad assembly for -O2

[Bug c/40087] New: Bad assembly for -O2

[markus at cs dot wisc dot edu]

This is gcc-4.3.3 in Gentoo, compiled with CHOST=i686-pc-linux-gnu and the
configure arguments:
--prefix=/usr --bindir=/usr/i686-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/4.3.3
--includedir=/usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.3.3/include
--datadir=/usr/share/gcc-data/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.3.3
--mandir=/usr/share/gcc-data/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.3.3/man
--infodir=/usr/share/gcc-data/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.3.3/info
--with-gxx-include-dir=/usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.3.3/include/g++-v4
--host=i686-pc-linux-gnu --build=i686-pc-linux-gnu --disable-altivec
--disable-fixed-point --enable-nls --without-included-gettext
--with-system-zlib --disable-checking --disable-werror --enable-secureplt
--disable-multilib --enable-libmudflap --disable-libssp --enable-libgomp
--enable-cld --enable-java-awt=gtk --with-arch=i686
--enable-languages=c,c++,java,treelang,fortran --enable-shared
--enable-threads=posix --enable-__cxa_atexit --enable-clocale=gnu
--with-bugurl=http://bugs.gentoo.org/ --with-pkgversion='Gentoo 4.3.3-r2 p1.1,
pie-10.1.5'

Some simple code works with -O1 but not -O2.  I'll attach the C file and the
disassembly from objdump.  I'm no good with assembly, but I find it weird that
'last' is decremented by 8 at one point.


-- 
           Summary: Bad assembly for -O2
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.3.3
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: major
          Priority: P3
         Component: c
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: markus at cs dot wisc dot edu
 GCC build triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
  GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40087

[Bug c/40087] Bad assembly for -O2

[markus at cs dot wisc dot edu]

------- Comment #1 from markus at cs dot wisc dot edu  2009-05-10 01:41 -------
Created an attachment (id=17842)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17842&action=view)
reverse.c

(The strange usage of pointers is there since I found the bug in C++ code, but
noticed it's present in C as well.)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40087

[Bug c/40087] Bad assembly for -O2

[markus at cs dot wisc dot edu]

------- Comment #2 from markus at cs dot wisc dot edu  2009-05-10 01:44 -------
`gcc -O1 reverse.c -o reverse -Wall && objdump -d reverse`

[...]
08048470 <reverse>:
 8048470:       55                      push   %ebp
 8048471:       89 e5                   mov    %esp,%ebp
 8048473:       53                      push   %ebx
 8048474:       8b 4d 08                mov    0x8(%ebp),%ecx
 8048477:       8b 45 0c                mov    0xc(%ebp),%eax
 804847a:       39 c8                   cmp    %ecx,%eax
 804847c:       75 1a                   jne    8048498 <reverse+0x28>
 804847e:       eb 36                   jmp    80484b6 <reverse+0x46>
 8048480:       8b 11                   mov    (%ecx),%edx
 8048482:       8b 03                   mov    (%ebx),%eax
 8048484:       89 01                   mov    %eax,(%ecx)
 8048486:       89 13                   mov    %edx,(%ebx)
 8048488:       83 c1 04                add    $0x4,%ecx
 804848b:       39 d9                   cmp    %ebx,%ecx
 804848d:       74 27                   je     80484b6 <reverse+0x46>
 804848f:       83 eb 04                sub    $0x4,%ebx
 8048492:       39 d9                   cmp    %ebx,%ecx
 8048494:       75 ea                   jne    8048480 <reverse+0x10>
 8048496:       eb 1e                   jmp    80484b6 <reverse+0x46>
 8048498:       8d 58 fc                lea    -0x4(%eax),%ebx
 804849b:       39 d9                   cmp    %ebx,%ecx
 804849d:       8d 76 00                lea    0x0(%esi),%esi
 80484a0:       74 14                   je     80484b6 <reverse+0x46>
 80484a2:       8b 11                   mov    (%ecx),%edx
 80484a4:       8b 03                   mov    (%ebx),%eax
 80484a6:       89 01                   mov    %eax,(%ecx)
 80484a8:       89 13                   mov    %edx,(%ebx)
 80484aa:       83 c1 04                add    $0x4,%ecx
 80484ad:       39 cb                   cmp    %ecx,%ebx
 80484af:       74 05                   je     80484b6 <reverse+0x46>
 80484b1:       83 eb 04                sub    $0x4,%ebx
 80484b4:       eb dc                   jmp    8048492 <reverse+0x22>
 80484b6:       5b                      pop    %ebx
 80484b7:       5d                      pop    %ebp
 80484b8:       c3                      ret    
[...]

`gcc -O2 reverse.c -o reverse -Wall && objdump -d reverse`

[...]
08048470 <reverse>:
 8048470:       55                      push   %ebp
 8048471:       89 e5                   mov    %esp,%ebp
 8048473:       56                      push   %esi
 8048474:       8b 4d 08                mov    0x8(%ebp),%ecx
 8048477:       53                      push   %ebx
 8048478:       8b 5d 0c                mov    0xc(%ebp),%ebx
 804847b:       39 cb                   cmp    %ecx,%ebx
 804847d:       74 37                   je     80484b6 <reverse+0x46>
 804847f:       8d 73 fc                lea    -0x4(%ebx),%esi
 8048482:       39 f1                   cmp    %esi,%ecx
 8048484:       74 30                   je     80484b6 <reverse+0x46>
 8048486:       8b 43 fc                mov    -0x4(%ebx),%eax
 8048489:       8b 11                   mov    (%ecx),%edx
 804848b:       89 01                   mov    %eax,(%ecx)
 804848d:       83 c1 04                add    $0x4,%ecx
 8048490:       39 ce                   cmp    %ecx,%esi
 8048492:       89 53 fc                mov    %edx,-0x4(%ebx)
 8048495:       74 1f                   je     80484b6 <reverse+0x46>
 8048497:       83 eb 08                sub    $0x8,%ebx
 804849a:       eb 07                   jmp    80484a3 <reverse+0x33>
 804849c:       8d 74 26 00             lea    0x0(%esi,%eiz,1),%esi
 80484a0:       83 eb 04                sub    $0x4,%ebx
 80484a3:       39 d9                   cmp    %ebx,%ecx
 80484a5:       74 0f                   je     80484b6 <reverse+0x46>
 80484a7:       8b 03                   mov    (%ebx),%eax
 80484a9:       8b 11                   mov    (%ecx),%edx
 80484ab:       89 01                   mov    %eax,(%ecx)
 80484ad:       83 c1 04                add    $0x4,%ecx
 80484b0:       39 d9                   cmp    %ebx,%ecx
 80484b2:       89 13                   mov    %edx,(%ebx)
 80484b4:       75 ea                   jne    80484a0 <reverse+0x30>
 80484b6:       5b                      pop    %ebx
 80484b7:       5e                      pop    %esi
 80484b8:       5d                      pop    %ebp
 80484b9:       c3                      ret    
 80484ba:       8d b6 00 00 00 00       lea    0x0(%esi),%esi
[...]


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40087

[Bug c/40087] Bad assembly for -O2

[markus at cs dot wisc dot edu]

------- Comment #3 from markus at cs dot wisc dot edu  2009-05-10 01:48 -------
Sorry, but there's one last thing.  Here's the output I get with -O1.
  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 
  8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 
and with -O2:
  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 
  8 7 6 4 5 3 2 1 


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40087

[Bug tree-optimization/40087] Bad assembly for -O2

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-05-10 09:42 -------
Testcase that fails at -O1 (the key is that reverse needs to be inlined):

extern void abort (void);

static void __attribute__((always_inline))
reverse(int *first, int *last)
{
  if (first == last--) 
    return;
  while (first != last)
    {
      int t = *first;
      *first = *last;
      *last = t;
      if (++first == last--)
        break;
    }
}

int main()
{
  int seq[] = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 };

  reverse(seq, seq + 8);
  if (seq[3] != 5 || seq[4] != 4)
    abort ();

  return 0;
}

On trunk we optimize it all to obviously wrong

...
  t_17 = seq[2];
  D.1989_19 = seq[5];
  seq[2] = D.1989_19;
  seq[5] = t_17;
  first_20 = &seq[3];
  last_21 = &seq[4];
  ivtmp.9_36 = 0;
  D.1253_2 = seq[3];
  if (D.1253_2 != 5)

thus we iterate one time less as necessary.


-- 

rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
          Component|c                           |tree-optimization
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
      Known to fail|                            |4.1.2 4.2.4 4.3.3 4.4.0
      Known to work|                            |4.0.4
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2009-05-10 09:42:26
               date|                            |
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.3.4


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40087

[Bug tree-optimization/40087] [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] Number of iterations analysis wrong

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-05-10 09:52 -------
It is number of iteration analysis that gets it wrong (I suppose it might get
confused by the two exits of the loop?).
Disabling loop header copying makes the code easier to analyze.


-- 

rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |                            |org
           Keywords|                            |wrong-code
            Summary|Bad assembly for -O2        |[4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression]
                   |                            |Number of iterations
                   |                            |analysis wrong


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40087

[Bug tree-optimization/40087] [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] Number of iterations analysis wrong

[rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |dot org                     |org
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed|2009-05-10 09:42:26         |2009-05-10 12:59:45
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40087

[Bug tree-optimization/40087] [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] Number of iterations analysis wrong

[rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #6 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-05-15 00:34 -------
(In reply to comment #5)
> It is number of iteration analysis that gets it wrong (I suppose it might get
> confused by the two exits of the loop?).

Sort of; # of iterations analysis assumes that pointers never wrap, and uses
this assumption to derive a wrong number of iterations for the first exit
(which is not taken).  We had a similar problem before (PR 25985), but I
somehow persuaded myself that this cannot happen with pointers.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40087

[Bug tree-optimization/40087] [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] Number of iterations analysis wrong

[rguenther at suse dot de]

------- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de  2009-05-15 08:44 -------
Subject: Re:  [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] Number
 of iterations analysis wrong

On Fri, 15 May 2009, rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:

> ------- Comment #6 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-05-15 00:34 -------
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > It is number of iteration analysis that gets it wrong (I suppose it might get
> > confused by the two exits of the loop?).
> 
> Sort of; # of iterations analysis assumes that pointers never wrap, and uses
> this assumption to derive a wrong number of iterations for the first exit
> (which is not taken).  We had a similar problem before (PR 25985), but I
> somehow persuaded myself that this cannot happen with pointers.

Ah - it indeed cannot happen, but you need to assume that the offsets
in POINTER_PLUS_EXPRs are signed (even though they are unsigned as
they are of type sizetype).  At least that should be the only
"overflow" present in this testcase, no?

Richard.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40087

[Bug tree-optimization/40087] [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] Number of iterations analysis wrong

[rakdver at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz]

------- Comment #8 from rakdver at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz  2009-05-15 15:44 -------
Subject: Re:  [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] Number of iterations analysis wrong

> > > It is number of iteration analysis that gets it wrong (I suppose it might get
> > > confused by the two exits of the loop?).
> > 
> > Sort of; # of iterations analysis assumes that pointers never wrap, and uses
> > this assumption to derive a wrong number of iterations for the first exit
> > (which is not taken).  We had a similar problem before (PR 25985), but I
> > somehow persuaded myself that this cannot happen with pointers.
> 
> Ah - it indeed cannot happen, but you need to assume that the offsets
> in POINTER_PLUS_EXPRs are signed (even though they are unsigned as
> they are of type sizetype).

that is not the problem.  The problem is that # of iterations analysis
has a look at the first test, of form [x,+,4] == [x + 28, +, -4],
observes that the variables do not wrap, and concludes that the loop
is not infinite.  So far OK, but next we infer that this means that
the exit is taken, i.e., that 28 % 8 = 0, and the things go down for
there.  I fixed this error before, but special-cased the pointer ivs
in a strike of wishful thinking.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40087

[Bug tree-optimization/40087] [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] Number of iterations analysis wrong

[rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #9 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-05-20 00:34 -------
Subject: Bug 40087

Author: rakdver
Date: Wed May 20 00:33:54 2009
New Revision: 147727

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=147727
Log:
        PR tree-optimization/40087
        * tree-ssa-loop-niter.c (number_of_iterations_ne_max,
        number_of_iterations_ne): Rename never_infinite argument.
        (number_of_iterations_lt_to_ne, number_of_iterations_lt,
        number_of_iterations_le): Handle pointer-type ivs when
        exit_must_be_taken is false.
        (number_of_iterations_cond):  Do not always assume that
        exit_must_be_taken if the control variable is a pointer.

        * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr40087.c: New test.


Added:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr40087.c
Modified:
    trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-niter.c


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40087

[Bug tree-optimization/40087] [4.3/4.4 Regression] Number of iterations analysis wrong

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-05-20 09:21 -------
Fixed on trunk sofar.


-- 

rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Known to work|4.0.4                       |4.0.4 4.5.0
            Summary|[4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression]    |[4.3/4.4 Regression] Number
                   |Number of iterations        |of iterations analysis wrong
                   |analysis wrong              |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40087

[Bug tree-optimization/40087] [4.3/4.4 Regression] Number of iterations analysis wrong

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-05-21 11:37 -------
Let's backport this before 4.4.1 goes out.


-- 

rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Priority|P3                          |P1


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40087

[Bug tree-optimization/40087] [4.3/4.4 Regression] Number of iterations analysis wrong

[rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #12 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-05-22 20:43 -------
Subject: Bug 40087

Author: rakdver
Date: Fri May 22 20:43:39 2009
New Revision: 147806

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=147806
Log:
        PR tree-optimization/40087
        * tree-ssa-loop-niter.c (number_of_iterations_ne_max,
        number_of_iterations_ne): Rename never_infinite argument.
        (number_of_iterations_lt_to_ne, number_of_iterations_lt,
        number_of_iterations_le): Handle pointer-type ivs when
        exit_must_be_taken is false.
        (number_of_iterations_cond):  Do not always assume that
        exit_must_be_taken if the control variable is a pointer.

        * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr40087.c: New test.


Added:
    branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr40087.c
Modified:
    branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/ChangeLog
    branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
    branches/gcc-4_4-branch/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-niter.c


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40087

[Bug tree-optimization/40087] [4.3 Regression] Number of iterations analysis wrong

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-05-23 09:15 -------
And for 4.4.1.


-- 

rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Known to work|4.0.4 4.5.0                 |4.0.4 4.4.1 4.5.0
            Summary|[4.3/4.4 Regression] Number |[4.3 Regression] Number of
                   |of iterations analysis wrong|iterations analysis wrong


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40087

[Bug tree-optimization/40087] [4.3 Regression] Number of iterations analysis wrong

[cnstar9988 at gmail dot com]

------- Comment #14 from cnstar9988 at gmail dot com  2009-06-15 10:10 -------
ping 4.3.4...


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40087

[Bug tree-optimization/40087] [4.3 Regression] Number of iterations analysis wrong

[mikpe at it dot uu dot se]

------- Comment #15 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se  2009-06-15 14:24 -------
(In reply to comment #14)
> ping 4.3.4...

The PR40087 fix depends on changes from the PR39455 fix. Both of them are 4.3
regressions, and I've used both fixes in my 4.3 tree for a while now without
issues.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40087

[Bug tree-optimization/40087] [4.3 Regression] Number of iterations analysis wrong

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #16 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-06-17 15:12 -------
Back to P2.  Testing a backport.


-- 

rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot  |rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |org                         |org
           Priority|P1                          |P2


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40087

[Bug tree-optimization/40087] [4.3 Regression] Number of iterations analysis wrong

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #17 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-06-17 19:46 -------
Fixed.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40087

[Bug tree-optimization/40087] [4.3 Regression] Number of iterations analysis wrong

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #18 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-06-17 19:46 -------
Subject: Bug 40087

Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jun 17 19:45:52 2009
New Revision: 148625

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=148625
Log:
2009-06-17  Richard Guenther  <rguenther@suse.de>

        Backport from mainline
        2009-03-16  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>

        PR tree-optimization/39455
        * tree-ssa-loop-niter.c (number_of_iterations_lt_to_ne): Fix types
        mismatches for POINTER_TYPE_P (type).
        (number_of_iterations_le): Likewise.

        * gcc.dg/pr39455.c: New test.

        2009-05-19  Zdenek Dvorak  <ook@ucw.cz>

        PR tree-optimization/40087
        * tree-ssa-loop-niter.c (number_of_iterations_ne_max,
        number_of_iterations_ne): Rename never_infinite argument.
        (number_of_iterations_lt_to_ne, number_of_iterations_lt,
        number_of_iterations_le): Handle pointer-type ivs when
        exit_must_be_taken is false.
        (number_of_iterations_cond):  Do not always assume that
        exit_must_be_taken if the control variable is a pointer.

        * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr40087.c: New test.

Added:
    branches/gcc-4_3-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr39455.c
    branches/gcc-4_3-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr40087.c
Modified:
    branches/gcc-4_3-branch/gcc/ChangeLog
    branches/gcc-4_3-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
    branches/gcc-4_3-branch/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-niter.c


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40087

[Bug tree-optimization/40087] [4.3 Regression] Number of iterations analysis wrong

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #19 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-06-17 19:49 -------
Fi-xed!


-- 

rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40087