From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 8321F3857824; Thu, 11 Aug 2022 09:25:43 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 8321F3857824
From: "stefansf at linux dot ibm.com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug debug/100960] var-tracking: parameter location in subregister
 not tracked
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2022 09:25:43 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: debug
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: stefansf at linux dot ibm.com
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-100960-4-8MDYzXtw2x@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-100960-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-100960-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2022 09:25:43 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D100960

--- Comment #5 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus <stefansf at linux dot ibm.=
com> ---
However, I found another example (see attachment a-t2.c.325r.vartrack) which
does not profit from the patch:

__attribute__((noinline, noclone)) void
fn1 (int x)
{
  __asm volatile ("" : "+r" (x) : : "memory");
}

__attribute__((noinline, noclone)) int
fn2 (int x, int y)
{
  if (x)
    {
      // x is copied into call-saved r11
      fn1 (x);
      // locs of x point to entry value only
      // ignoring r11
      fn1 (x);
    }
  return y;
}

__attribute__((noinline, noclone)) int
fn3 (int x, int y)
{
  return fn2 (x, y);
}

int
main ()
{
  fn3 (36, 25);
  return 0;
}

For fn2 the value for parameter x is 5:5

cselib hash table:
...
(value/u:SI 5:5 @0x5fb9420/0x5f5e600)
 locs:
  from insn 1 (value/u:SI 6:263 @0x5fb9438/0x5f5e630)
  from insn 1 (entry_value:SI (reg:SI 2 %r2 [ xD.2274 ]))
  from insn 1 (reg:SI 2 %r2 [ xD.2274 ])
 no addrs

which is recorded in bb 2. In bb 4 (the true branch of the if) register r2 =
is
saved in r11:

bb 4 op 0 insn 36 MO_VAL_USE (concat/v:DI (value/u:DI 26:26
@0x5fb9618/0x5f5e9f0)
        (reg:DI 2 %r2 [64]))
bb 4 op 1 insn 36 MO_VAL_SET (concat/u:DI (value/u:DI 26:26
@0x5fb9618/0x5f5e9f0)
        (set (reg/v:DI 11 %r11 [orig:61 xD.2274+-4 ] [61])
            (reg:DI 2 %r2 [64])))
(insn 36 10 11 4 (set (reg/v:DI 11 %r11 [orig:61 xD.2274+-4 ] [61])
        (reg:DI 2 %r2 [64])) 1472 {*movdi_64}
     (nil))
cselib hash table:
(value/u:DI 26:26 @0x5fb9618/0x5f5e9f0)
 locs:
  from insn 36 (reg/v:DI 11 %r11 [orig:61 xD.2274+-4 ] [61])
  from insn 36 (reg:DI 2 %r2 [64])
 no addrs
cselib preserved hash table:
...
(value/u:SI 5:5 @0x5fb9420/0x5f5e600)
 locs:
  from insn 1 (value/u:SI 6:263 @0x5fb9438/0x5f5e630)
  from insn 1 (entry_value:SI (reg:SI 2 %r2 [ xD.2274 ]))
 no addrs

However at bb 4 the relation between r2 and value 5:5 is lost (except the e=
ntry
value relation). Thus I cannot record the subvalue relation between 5:5 and
26:26 at least not during creation of 26:26. Since cselib resets its table
after jumps I'm not sure how to proceed here. Any ideas?

I would be also up for the second idea and pretend that the move is not a
DImode copy but a SImode copy. However, I'm not sure how to look up the mod=
e of
the actual type. Any pointers?=